Skip to main content

Full text of "Liber Ardmachanus: the book of Armagh"

See other formats




Cornell University 

The original of this book is in 
the Cornell University Library. 

There are no known copyright restrictions in 
the United States on the use of the text. 

In compliance with current 
copyright law, Cornell University 

Library produced this 

replacement volume on paper 

that meets the ANSI Standard 

Z39.48-1992 to replace the 

irreparably deteriorated original. 


fyxmll %mvmxi^ §*atg 

leltic Collection 


3ames IHofgan Hart 



Edition limited to 400 Copies, 
of whicli this is 

















IN submitting" to the Royal Irish Academy this edition of the Book of Armagh, 
now issued under their auspices, it is fit that I should offer my apology for the 
length of time that has been occupied in preparing it for publication. 

When, after the lamented death of the great scholar and antiquary, 
William Reeves, Bishop of Down, Connor, and Dromore, the preparation of an 
Editio Diplomatica of this ms, on the lines laid down by him, and with the aid of 
the materials which he had collected, was entrusted to me by the then President 
of the Academy, Dr. Ingram, it was not without hesitation that I undertook the 
burden. My time was largely occupied by my professorial duties in the University, 
and by other work to which I was already committed. To transcribe and print 
the text of the ms, as now reproduced, was necessarily a slow process, needing 
constant supervision and repeated revision, and it was sometimes unavoidably 
interrupted. And the composition of an Introduction demanded more time for 
study and research than I had at my disposal, until my release from the duties of 
my Chair set me free to give undivided attention to the work, so long in hands, 
now at last completed. 

The undertaking was not a single one. It is a threefold task to edit a ms 
which is not one book, but three books in one volume. This ms presents not only 
the sole known example of the entire Latin New Testament as read in Celtic 
Churches, but to this sacred text it prefixes a collection of the earliest extant 
documents concerning St. Patrick, and it subjoins a copy, unique in some impor- 
tant points, of the Life (with the appended Dialogues and Epistles) of St. Martin 
of Tours. To give an adequate survey of these three texts, so distinct inter se, 
in a brief time or within narrow limits, would be impossible. Whatever be the 
defects of the present edition, I am confident that all fair critics will judge that 
the tardiness of its completion is due to the wide range and grave difficulty 
of the work, not to remissness on the Editor's part. 

Moreover (I would add), the years which it has occupied have brought with 
them compensating gains. They have supplied from time to time fresh and 
valuable materials for the illustration of each of the three Divisions, above 
indicated, of our ms. — Thus, towards the interpretation of the Irish passages in 


the Patrician Division (and, in general, of the Irish words and glosses which 
occur all through), the Thesaurus Palaeohibernicus (190 1-3) and other later works 
of Dr. Whitley Stokes and his colleague Professor John Strachan, have con- 
tributed much. The masterly studies which Professor J. B. Bury has given in the 
publications of this Academy and elsewhere, and his Life of St. Patrick (1905), 
have finally established the historical character and value of the records which 
form this Division. Professor H. Zimmer, by his criticism (in his notable article, 
Keltische Studien) of these and other like documents, if he failed to establish his 
theory of the place of Patrick in the history of the Irish Church, has thrown new 
light on, and stimulated inquiry into, the beginnings of Christianity in South- 
Eastern Ireland. Dr. Newport White's Libri S. Patricii, issued by this Academy 
in 1905, a work of solid worth, is the first really critical edition of the Confessio 
and the Epistola. So too, in the Biblical Division, we have the Histoire de la 
Vulgate, in which Professor S. Berger, in 1893, traced the transmission and 
distinguished the various types of this Version, dealing fully with the Celtic type, 
and specially describing our ms, of which he made a minute study when he visited 
Dublin a few years before. Moreover, for the textual criticism of the Vulgate 
New Testament, there are now available the whole Pars I (Oxford, 1889-98) 
containing the Four Gospels, and one Fasciculus (1905) containing the Acts, of 
the invaluable Nouum Testamentum Latine of the late Dr. John Wordsworth 
(Bishop of Salisbury) and Dr. H. J. White, which in its Apparatus Criiicus 
cites our ms as the chief example of a Vulgate of Celtic type. For the Old-Latin 
element which so deeply affects this text, much has been recently done by 
scholars in bringing to light or recollating sundry remnants of its many forms, — 
as by Dr. H. J. White and Mr. E. S. Buchanan in Old-Latin Texts (1907-11), 
and by Dr. H.Jackson Lawlor in his Book of Mulling (1897). And, as regards 
the remaining Division, the Martinian, it was not till 1905-6 that Professor 
E. Ch. Babut became acquainted with our text of the Life, &c., and discerned 
its singular features. 

Of the materials that were accessible in his time. Bishop Reeves made use 
with characteristic industry and thoroughness. Among his papers that have been 
placed in my hands the most important are : — 

(i) A transcript of the Patrician Documents, annotated throughout, chiefly 
from the Irish Vita Tripartita as translated by Colgan, and the Latin Vitae 
included in his Trias Thaumaturgica, and from other authorities, — some early, as 
Ussher and Ware ; some recent, as Dr. Charles Graves (Bishop of Limerick), 
and Dr. J. H. Todd (Senior Fellow of Trinity College), in his St. Patrick. — 
Also, a draft Index to these Documents. 


(2) A collation with the (Clementine) Vulgate of the whole New Testament 
text of our ms ; also (as regards the Gospels) of four other Vulgate texts of Celtic 
origin, the Book of Durrow, Book of Kells, Book of Dimma, Book of Moling, and of 
the two (fragmentary) Old-Latin Codices Usseriani. 

(3) A collation of our Martinian text with a printed edition. 

There are moreover his two printed memoirs which treat of the history 
and contents of the ms. These I have embodied (with slight abridgment, and 
omissions to avoid repetition) in my Introduction, Chapters I and VIII. His 
written collections I have used and found helpful throughout my work. 

But I have re-examined for myself every portion of the ms, and have 
consulted nearly all writers known to me who have treated of it or of any part 
of its contents. And I have been careful to supply exact references in citing the 
several authorities whose statements or inferences I have adopted or disputed. 

In each of the three Divisions, my undertaking has been lightened by the 

assistance of friends to whom I am deeply indebted. — In my study of the 

Patrician Documents, of the First Division, I enjoyed the inestimable advantage 

of working side by side with Professor J. B. Bury while he was engaged on his 

Life of St. Patrick (above referred to). Whatever I may have accomplished 

(in Chh. II— VII) in solving the difficulties which these entangled and often 

fragmentary records present, and reducing them to something of a coherent 

narrative, is largely due to the encouragement, information, and criticism 

which I had from him throughout. The translations (borrowed from Thesaurus 

Palaeohibernicus by kind permission of the Editors) of the Irish passages included 

in this Division, with which I am not competent to deal, have been revised for 

my use by my son Edward Gwynn, Fellow of Trinity College, and Lecturer in 

Celtic Languages, in the University of Dublin, who has also supplied in 

Appendix F the interpretation of the Irish words and glosses that occur in the ms 

passim. — Again, when I entered (in Ch. X) on the critical examination of the text 

of the Vulgate New Testament as presented in the Second Division, I had before 

me the collations of the above-mentioned Book of Durrow and Book of Kells, 

and of Cod. Usserianus II, which Dr. T. K. Abbott (Senior Fellow and Librarian 

of Trinity College) has appended to his edition {Evangeliorum Versio Antehieronym., 

1884), of the earlier Cod. Usserianus I ; which admirable work, moreover, made 

it unnecessary to recollate those mss. Of another cognate Vulgate text of 

the Gospels, the Book of Dimma, Dr. J. H. Bernard, then Archbishop King's 

Professor of Divinity, now Bishop of Ossory, was so kind as to make a complete 

collation for the purposes of my work ; and to him I owe thanks also for some 

valuabls suggestions in this part of it. To one of my present colleagues, 


Dr. H. Jackson Lawlor, Professor of Ecclesiastical History, I am under like 
obligation for his services in collating for me yet another Vulgate Gospel ms 
of the same family, the Book of Moling; the text of which, under his critical 
scrutiny, proved to embody the important Old-Latin fragments above referred to. 
In dealing with the text of the remaining Books of the New Testament, where no 
other copy of Celtic origin is extant, I obtained assistance in a different form 
from my son Robert M. Gwynn, Fellow of Trinity College, who has contributed 
to Ch. X a critical study (Section viii) of the text as exhibited in our ms of the 
Pauline Epistles. I have already referred to the Oxford edition of the Vulgate. 
From its ample Apparatus I have borrowed more largely than from all other 
sources in my study of the text of the Gospels and Acts. And I desire here 
further to express my grateful sense of personal obligation to its editors. All 
through this part of my work (Ch. X) I had the benefit of communication with 
both — with Bishop Wordsworth to the last year of his life, and with Dr. H. J. 
White to the present time. To both I am indebted for valued counsel and 
information, and in particular for the use of some printed texts of the Old-Latin 
which I had failed to procure through the booksellers, and of collations, made by 
them, of inedited Vulgate mss. — Finally, to Professor Babut, whose study of our 
text of the Martinian Memoirs I have mentioned above, my special thanks are 
due for his kindness in drawing up at my request the summary of his important 
results which forms Sect, iii of Ch. XL 

To other friends who have favoured me with information on particular 
points, I have acknowledged my obligations in foot-notes to the Introduction. 

I regret that I did not meet with Dom Chapman's important Early History 
of the Vulgate Gospels (1908) in time to make more than a passing reference to it 
(p. cxli). Mr. Hoskier's sumptuous edition of the Golden Gospels (1910), and also 
Professor W. M. Lindsay's interesting tract, Early Irish Minuscule Script (19 10), 
also reached me too late for use in this volume. 

I desire here to express my appreciation of the conscientious care and 
scholarly accuracy with which the transcription of the ms for the printers was 
executed by the Rev. J. Mason Harden, b.d. 

Also of the artistic skill of the late Miss Maud Faulkner, from whose drawings, 
made after enlarged photographs of the often faded or damaged originals, the 
ornamental initial letters in this book have been reproduced. 

Finally, I have to thank Mr. J. T. Gibbs, Manager of the University Press, 
and his predecessor, Mr. G. Weldrick, and their staff, for the painstoking and 
intelligent manner in which they have executed the printing of the Volume. 


November, IQ13. 



Page xiv, line 20; for eighteen: read nineteen. | xv. 14; for 1097: over iioo. | xviii, not. 1, 2; for some 
capita : cap. 26 and latter part of 24. | xxvii, 23 ; for p. xvi : p. xx. | xxxi, n. ', i ; for Gaelicized : Celticized. | 
Ivii, 36 ; for Portnish ; Bushmills. \ Iviii, a. ', 2 ; for an early : a written. | Ixvi, n. ', 7 ; before proyXma : dele on. | 
Ixxvil, 23 ; /or and Iserninus : r«a(? Secundinus and Benignus. | Ib.,/^o;forb, 11. 11 : S, 1. 10. | \iixmi, 2 ; for v a, 
1. 1 : 42a, 11. I, 12. I Ixxxii, n. * ; /o>- idolis : idolo. Also, at end, arf<i: See also i Cor. x. 28 (Vg. and O.L.). | Ixxxiii, 
n. 3 ; after p.xci, add : But see further in Add. N., p. ccxc. | cxix, ji. », 2 ; for It : read The extract. | /*., ib. ; before 
pp. . jVw. see. I cxxiii, 37; /o>- if: rea<? pp. | cxxvii, 1 7 ; /ornext Chapter : Appendix G. | cxxviii, 31 ;/»?• sixth : 
sixteenth. | clxxix, 18 and 20 ; /orclxv : cxlv. | ccxi, 31 ; a/fe?- Vulg : j-«6j<. point (.), for comma (,). | /S., 33 ; 
for The D-text ; read Our D-text. | ccxviii, 5 ; after MSS : add against A. | cclix, n. ', I ; for Archbishop Moran : 
read Archbishop Healy. 

Page 3, col. J, 1. 32 {fng.) ; for n : read n (= nomen). | 5 5, 14 ; for regionse : regiones. | 15 a, 41 ; for 
O {iniital) : U. | ly b, S ; for uii : iiii. | 20a, 1 ; for immailtin {gu., sic in MS ?): immaistin. | 2 1 J, upper »»^. ; 
/»• arincertus : as incertus. | /J,, 9 ; /or raethbrain : niethbrain. | 25 a, 20 ; ybr Itimen : airnen. | /S., i, 35 ; 
for sescis: sescin(n). | 32 6, 3 1 ; yb?- bebliotics : beblioticis. | 33 S, 22 ; ybr larout : laront (?). | /S., 33 ; yor dScrad : 
de6rad. | 37 a, 3;_/orleo: lee. | 130, lower mg.; for uiii : u. | 2186, 10 ; for angustia : ang (= ang«rf«j, with 
F, d, g (gr., D, G) ; rather than angueli, as A, &c. (after most gr.)). | 336 b, 13 ; for solummun : sollummun. | 337 b, 
21 mg. ; for Tm.m[ | i[ | d : rum[ | n[ | d. | 3400, i2mg.;for ] is laudatar: ]us laudatK?-. | 346 a, 26 mg.; 
for judicium: judicium (?). | ^i^?, a, ly mg. ; for ]ris internal | ]tid ... ; Jrisin tomal | tid . . . . | 349 J, 2-j mg.\ 
o/fe?- etalacda : mj. [ . | ■^y>a, ly mg.\ for ]ro fufirim : »-«aii ]ro fusirim (.'). | 3600, 18 w^. ;yii?' ']t hominihus : 
ue\ hominibus. \ 365 a, 2 mg.; before diaconis: ins. id est. \ 368 a, 17 mg. ; before armifoistis : ins. bracket (]). | 
380, upper mg., ins. (a second) xxx before (second) usq; — also, for det : read de . . . (?). | 384 a, 21 mg. ; before in : 
8«j. bracket (]). | m^a, 12 mg. ; for ]g : read ]x. 

460 (21); /or Add. N. : r^arf Suppl. N. | 462 (42); /orErcc : Ere. | /&,, u. 't ; /or Morelt : Morett. | 463(55); 
for fiacla : fiacail. | 475 ; dele footnote > on 1. 4. 

481, col. I ; /or Ached Fobuir : r«a<i Achad Fobuir. | 482, c. I, ««t/er Auxilius ; /or 3a: read T,b. \ /5., i,. 3, 
under Calrige ; for 29 a : subst. (from next line) 33 * (bis), 456 (i), (3) ; (and vice versa). \ 484, c. 2, under Connacht ; 
for 19 b : read 35 b. | 484, c. 2, under Crich Coirbri m. B. ; at end : ins. 37 b, 463 (52). | 48b, c. 3, under Failartus ; 
J«/or« 256 : z'wj. 24*, 454 S. | 487, c. 2, aw^i^r Fochlad ; before 2\a: ins. 20b. \ 496,0,1, «K(;?«r Semen ; a/if^r Mag: 
dele point (.). | Jb., ib. ; after Senso : ins. comma (,). | lb., t. 2, under Sescenn ; for 468 : 456 (I). 

The following are explanatory of the marginalia, &c., where mutilated or otherwise needing annotation. 

On Patrician Documents. 

Page 32 a, 17; [ ]ammaith [ ]liu and la[ ]rtrich; (unexplained). | 37 a, 3, crum, munis [or manis] ; see p. 460 
(21), and 465, Suppl. N. | lb., 10 ; oi \tvache; see p. 460 (28). 

On New Testament. 

Page 91 S, 14, 25, 26; Cp. ()2a, 12-14, and 925, 18-20, for the marks attached to these lines. | i6i a, 29; 
comifer (qu., qualifying linguebant?). \ 182 a, 12, 32 ; d"* h* {deest, hie est). These note omission, and supply {cp. 
pp. 390> 403). I 247 *, 3 ; ael ariet[ae] ; for .4ra/fc« (Aretae). 

p. 335 (Diagram). ' Ciuitas Hierusalem in quadro posita ' (Apoc. xxi. 10-16). 

(Inner side) ; Ad orientem : Anguelus Andreae, Ruben, saphirus . Ang. Petri', ludas, iaspis . Ang. lacob, Semio«, 

(Lower side) ; Ab aquilo«e : Ang. lobannis. Gad, smragdus . Ang. FSippi, Leui, sardinus^ . Ang. Baitolomei, 
Aser, adionj"*;.^ 

(Upper side); Ad avtstrum: Ang. Thomae, Zahulon, crisolitus . Ang. Math«z, Dan, biri//«j . Aug. lacob Alfei, 
Neptalim, topatius. 

(Outer side) ; Ad occ[cas«»«] : Ang. Tathej, 'Ebaim, ciisoprasus . Ang. Simeon Cananei, Maaasse, iacini«j . Ang. 
Mathio«, BeBj'amin, amoetitus.^ 

(In middle). 'Dominus noster Ihs Xps. 

' /.>., carchedon (chalcedonius). ^ Or, sardius. ^ I.e., sardonyx. * I.e., amethystus. 



Page 337 b, line 3 ; caen[aculum]. | lb., 14 ; . . . id b[ Jg[ ] ; (unexplained). | /*., 21 ; rum[i]n[aige]d.* | 339*, 27; 
diui[dentes]. | 3400,13; [id]em «< plantae (jc, basses = plantae). | lb., 20; fexcessju mentis (c/. x. 10, xi. 5). | 
Ib.,il; [pilat]us laudatw?-. | 341*, 11; dis[cipulos]. | 342 a, 13; [in]sola ire ma[ri magno (?) in]qua fue[runt d]e 
iudeis «if [grecis aliquo]t. | 343 S, 20 ; test[i]monii. | 345 5, 6 ; stefan[us] dzat a sem[et] ipso.' | /S., 34 ; stefa«MJ 
d[zat], (misplaced in MS). | /*., 31 ; cocu[b] in ebr^o, rem[pham] in grec[o], lucif[er] in h.\tino]. \ 3460,26; 
[ijudicium adiutorii {corr., indicium; (sc, stantem implies readiness to help). | /*., y>; ddnsit [««1] coregabsat.* | 
348 a, 17; [f]risin tomaltid.* | lb., 29; aduerbium . . . (notes that damasci, gen. of place, is used adverbially; so 
again, on tharsum, ace. of place, 349 a, 18). | lb., 33; [\/.] proprium uici, notes that •J. rectus is the name of a 
street. | 349 a, 3 (upper m^.) ; ('•• ii^«; inoinchis, ««1 icissiu*. | /*., S, 25 ; fdalire, ««1 [co]riarium [i^^^f* cro]icn6ir.* | 
35° «) 17 ; [pa]ro, fufirim ; [pa]reo, \dest, obedio ; [pa]rio, dufuismiu.* | lb., 20 ; ['■''amal]anart ue\ ixaal [l]indae.* | 
lb., 27; [escjmon ue\ c6it[ch]enn, \d est, npud gen[t]es, ut sds, religua." | Hi b, 6; niidebthi[gtis].* | 3S3*> 3' ! 
haec {corr., hoc) est enim, q«a^rens a[uer]t?re sub[tili lo]cutione pTO<ro«sule[m] a fide. | 356 a, 29 ; now ipsa occiden[taJlis 
(on Italiam, falsely read for Attaliam). | 357 S, 20; dis[sensio], (corrects misreading discessio). | 358 a, 8; 
[Mace]don[ius], proprium; (or, [de Mace]don[ia]). | /*., 11; [. .[Luc]as dicit (on quessiuimus ; noting that the 
'a/e' -narrative begins). | lb., it, ]aln3e; (unexplained). | /*., 23 ; [co]rcr[6i]r.* | iS., 24 ; [t]hiathi[terin]orum 
(sc, Thyatiremrum). | 359 S, 28 ; si[laid bria]thar.* | 7S., 32 ; cusi[nn hua]sal[fich].* | 360 a, 7 ; hoc al[ta]re. | 
Ib.,lZ(corr.);{ue']\)\ominVous. | /S., 27; \ji]rtvs (corr . for arti/icii) . | 361*, 37; be[rn brojca.* | 362 a, 3 ; 
[exa]rcist[id].* | 7S., 7 ; '■•prop]ri[um], (o>-/«Ma^j ; [ui]ri). | /*., 20 ;[.. (.')ndalia (unexplained). | 362*, 19; 
.yj id est aliter, id est ut iret (explains aliud as meaning, ' the contrary,' sc, that (Paul) should go [in to the theatre]). | 
363 b, 30 ; id est, quam anima[m] (explains guam me). I 364 a, left-hand mg. (continuation of long note, upper mg, on 
b 2, which ends, quam acci (■ ) ; [("• pere], id est, quod non labo[rau]it, e^ideo ut [scriptjum est,* unus [quis]q«? laborat 
[ut h]abeat \mde [com]monicet indi[genti]baj, ut Iohan[nis] Cassianus [han]c rationem [in xm]o libro de [xii] libris 
suis [com]mendat.3 I lb., 23; [««1] sanctificatis omiribus (corr. for sanctificationibus). \ 3660, 6; [. . ce]ramen 
[t]empli].* f /5., 9 ; [ ind]uctus [a]dhuc, s«rf [pajrabant [induc]ere. | /*., 14 [('••claijdbide.* \ 3676, l8 ; 
idest, i«t^i>-ficer[etur], (explanatory of dw«r^«?-«;«?-). | 3680,17; [C' i]armifoistis.* | /*., 27; [i- sle]gandu, iti «J#, 
[gai]scedig.* | lb., 35; \{-xi\omen tribuni. | 370a, 13; [f] suide bri[th]emon, idest, Cessaria.* | lb., 19; 
[ad]sluindim.* | 3735,24; diriug [men]mnig.* | 374 a, 3; [de]muiride.* | lb., 7; [e]os (or, [uinctjos) quos 
custodiebant. | lb., 14 ; [. . d]iurad.* | lb., 22 ; [?]nna, (unexplained). 

On Vita, Gee, S. Martini. 

378 a, 7; [aetern(?)]am. | 3796, 13; xxx millia, Mediotanum ; xx millia, Ticinum, Papia, I^ongobardorum vel 
lAgnrum.^ | 379 (upper ?»§■.) S, 3 ; Amben[ens]es, Gal/z'a^ Bel^'ca^.* | 380 (upper m^.). Of this note the earlier part 
(probably relating to Ambenenses) is irrecoverable, (except the numeral xxx at the beginning, and apparently a second xxx (?) 
a little before the second usq;). The latter part relates to pictauae . . . ciuitatis (b, 20, 21), which it places in Gallia 
Equitamca [sic], \ 380 a, 19 ; [bo]rmi[tomagus in Germa]nis (?). This is note on Va(n)gionum ciuitatem ; sc, 
Borme[i]tomagus (f^o>'?»j) in ff^^'mam'o.SM^^rzo?- (province of Gaul).* | 3840, 21; \\oca.m\in(sc., locum, in monasterium 
constituit). \ lb., 28; [cl]aiis (corr. ; claustrat for duxerat). | 387 a, 18; Lirobrosum (corr. for libroso, or leproso, 
ofedd.). I 387 J, 18; Xin pa[gol. | 389 J, 2 ;-Io[tetia], (re., Lutetia (/"am). | 391 *, 13 ; m«1 era[t]. | 395^, 7 »«^.; 
. . . nisi ca[ritas]. | ^oia mg.,2'] ; [pxoAidiis]ient (suppl. after fuerat). | 403 a, 12; deest refers io hie est in wpper mg. 
(where alterum numquam uidisset iratum, is supplied). | /*., b, 28 ; p>'a[estabat], {corr, for laboris). \ 404 a, 6 ; 
pomis (corr. for ramis). \ lb., li; [• ere]mum (suppl. after Sanctis). \ 4055,2; ten[derunt], (jc, tetenderunt), 
for adierunt. \ 408 a, 16; [quorum], (corr. for quoniam). \ 4115,12; uolun[tatem], /or ^ofejto^ew. | /6., 32 ; 
non a[udeo] (suppl. heioreuel). | 4140, 12; [xx]x (corr. for g).' | 4160,5; [xxx]iii.' | 4175, 17; anairmb«rt, 
(on apparatus).* | 419 a, 32 ; ««1 u, (re., tur«is (toruis), corr. /or iKr5w). | 4200,33; [ ?] men ; (unexplained). | 
434 a, 15 ; [d]eccid in[so], sr<5in, siiil, b^l.* 

1 This note marks the end of Stephen's citation, and resumption of his own speech ; and so the next (on 1. 34). 
' Eph. iv. 28. ' Joh. Cassian., De Coenobiorum Institutis, x. 18, 19. 

* Milan is distant 30 (Roman) miles from (?) ; 20 from Ticinum (= Papia, Pavia), capital of the Longobards, formerly 
of the Ligurians. [Or perhaps v means quinque, and notes that Ticinum in Lombardy is five (Roman) miles from the 
Ligurian frontier.] * Otherwise Ambiani ; Amiens, in Gallia Belgica. 

* A trace remains of before rmi. For Borraitomagus, see Itineraria, in D' Urban, Recueil des Itiniraires, 
pp. 105, I II. — \0r (possibly) .fformioreej- is intended, — an equivalent (not elsewhere found) for Vangiones. 

' Sectional numbers ; see 1. 2 for xxuiiii, and 5, 2 for xxxi. 

* Refer to Appx. F, pp. 472-474, for the places thus marked. 


Introduction PP- xiii-cclxxviii 

Chapter I. — Preliminary. xiii-xvi 

Contents of MS ; Three main Divisions, p. xiii. Calligraphy and arrangement, xiv; lost leaves (i, 41-44), ib.; 
Scribe (Ferdomnach) identified, xv; date determined, ib. Dignity of Scribe's office, xvi. 

Chapter II. — Contents: Part i; Life by Muirchu, Bk. i. xvii-xxxvi 

Our MS here defective, xvil ; defects supplied by MS B, xviii. Parentage, and date, of Muirchu, xix ; Aed of 
Sletty his instructor, «"*.— His Narrative, its four periods ; (a) early life of Patrick, based on Confessio, xxi ; 
(*) his preparation in Gaul, xxii ; on what traditions based ? xxiii ; (c) his work in N.E. Ireland, ib. ; 
narrative here detailed, showing local knowledge, xxv ; (d) his work in Central Ireland, xxvii ; this period 
linked to preceding, ib. ; he reaches Tara at Easter ; King Laeghaire, his Magi, and their prophecy, xxviii ; 
he defeats them, ib. ; submission and conversion of King, ib. P.'s subsequent work briefly summed up, 
xxix. In period {d), miracles abound, ib. ; legendary character of narrative, ib. ; incidents shaped after 
Scriptural models, ib. ; traces in it of Sletty tradition, xxx ; compared with Hymn of Fiacc, ib. ; 
probably includes Meath tradition in common with Tirechan, xxxi. Muirchu's probable visit to N.E. and 
Central Ireland, xxxii.— The Miracles: four related in text (three of Down, one of Armagh), xxxiii ; three 
more mentioned in Capita (pp. 39, 40), xxxiv ; these three supplied from MS B, (see Appx. A), ib. — 
Account of MS B, xxxv ; Muirchu, Lib. I, compared with V, T. , xxxvi. 

Chapter III.— Contents: Part II ; Muirchu, Bk. 11. xxxvii-xiii 

Its fifteen Capita, xxxvii. Its structure broken, xxxviii ; but style uniform with Lib. i, ib, C. 15 continuous with 
cc. I, 2, 3, ib. Cc. 4-14 form distinct document, xxxix ; being Down tradition of death and burial of P., xl. 
Cc. I, 2, 3 show no note of place ; c. 15 reverts to Antrim, xli. These cc. compared with Sechnall's 
Hymn, xli. — Two appended paragraphs, xlii. 

Chapter IV. — Contents : Part HI ; Memoirs by Tirechan, Bk. i. xiui-iii 

Anonymous fragment prefixed, xliii ; identified as a stray portion of Tirechan's text, and placed in Lib. 11, ib. 
Dicta Patricii, xliv. — Tir.'s material derived from his master, Ultan, xlv ; his (approximate) date, ib. ; lack 
of literary skill, ib. ; narrative scheme mainly topographical, i3>. ; his attempt to fix chronology, xlvi. — Begins 
with brief summary of P.'s early life, xlvi ; Mission narrative opens with his landing on E. coast (at 
Campus Breg), xlvii ; he founds first Church there, ib. ; baptizes Benignus and designates him Haeres, ib. 
Catalogue of Bishops, &c., ordained by P., ib. ; more foundations, ib. — P. at Tara, ib. ; his conflicts with 
the King's Magi (as in Muirchu, but briefer), ib. P. at Talten meets Coirbre and Conall, xlviii ; King L. 
finally (not as in Muirchu) refuses conversion, ib. Meets Enda of Silua Fochl. (Tirawley), xlix ; agrees 
with him for safe conduct to Mt. Aigli ; here Tir. cites Confessio, ib. — Further work in Central Ireland, ib. 
Sets out with Enda for Silua Fochl., and reaches E. bank of Shannon, 1. — Tir. assumes earlier/acts to be 
known to his readers, ib.\ has evidently collected, not invented, his facts, li ; he and Muirchu independently 
derive Meath tradition from a common (not recent) source, li ; its form in Tir. apparently more exact 
than in M., lii. Notes in this Bk. i of preparation for Bk. 11, lii. 

Chapter V. — Contents : Part IV ; Tirechan, Bk. II. liii-ixiii 

Book II, written in Connaught for men of Meath, liii ; its avowed aim, to assert the rights of Parochia P", ib. ; 
its method, compilation not controversy, ib. ; its form, an itinerary, liv ; its order, not of time but of place ; 
two or more journeys thrown into one, ib. — P. crosses Shannon into Roscommon, Iv. Narrative loses sight 
of Silua F., ib. By Elphin to Rathcrochan, Ivi. Episode of conversion and death of King's daughters, Ivi. 
Gathering of Bishops at Selce, ib. Discursive journeyings, passing mto Mayo, ib. ; P.'s forty days' fast on 
Mt. Aigli, ib. Further journeys through Mayo, &c. P. at last reaches Silua F., Ivii; overcomes Magi 
there, baptizes many, founds ChurcheSj ib.; thence E. and N.E. over the R. Moy through Sligo and 
Leitrim, and over R. Duff', R. Drowess, and R. Eme, into Donegal, ib. ; thence eastward route, told 
with little detail ; over R. Bann and R. Bush, ib. He revisits Slemish and Skerry, ivii ; traditions of his 
bondage there, ib. Thence circuit through Tyrone and Monaghan, back to Tara, ib. ; Armagh apparently 
unnoticed, Iviii. Then his journey in Leinster, briefly noted ; through Kildare ; and baptism of sons of 



Dunlaing, j5.— Thence into Munster, z'S.— Narrative ends abruptly with baptism of King's sons at 
Cashel, z*.— This Boole for the most part not a history of an actual journey, but a summary of P.'s 
mission-work in W., thrown into itinerary form, lix ; its discontinuity at some points self-betrayed, ib. It 
perhaps combines records of three main journeys, as indicated by P.'s ' three crossings ' of Shannon, Ix. 

Suppl. Note on Ch. V. Several interruptions of narrative of Bk, II, Ixi ; all these interruptions 
fragments of a tradition of an early entrance into Connaught through Tirerrill, Ixiii. 

Chapter VI. — Contents -. Part v ; Supplementary Documents. ixiv-ixxvii 

(A). Six short paragraphs, Ixiv-lxvii; No. I probably derived from a P.S. in the archetype of MS, ib. \ Nos. 2-6 

apparently added by scribe, Ixv ; important emendation of No. 3, Ixvi. (5) Additamenta, from archives 

of 'Heirs of Patrick' in Armagh, Ixvii-Ixxii : object of including these, Ixvii ; arrangement of them, ib. 
I (Meath), Trim record, Lomman, ib.: 11 (Connanght), Roscommon, Sligo, Leitrim (six documents, 
mostly in Irish), Ixvii : III {Leinster), Iseminus, Fiacc, Aedh (four documents, partly in Irish), Ixx ; these 

probably rest on information from Aedh, Ixxi. (C) The Notulae, Ixxii-lxxv; their relation to V.T., 

Ixxii ; grouped topographically, Ixxiv ; probably copied by scribe from memoranda of an earlier collector, 
(qu., Torbach .?) ib. Another group {Gregorian), Ixxxv. — [The misplaced Preface and Capita of Muirchu I, 

ib.'\ (-0) Liber Angeli, Ixxv-lxxviii ; a document composed with a purpose, Ixxvi ; in two Parts, (a) The 

Colloquy, enlarging the limits and rights of Paruchia P"; (b) The Code, defining its prerogatives and 
privileges, Ixxvii ; appeal to Rome reserved, ib. — Points of contact of both Parts with Muirchu and 
Tirechan, ib. ; both Parts later than our other documents ; but (b) earlier than (a), Ixxviii ; apparently 
exhibited to King Brian in proof of prerogative of Armagh, ib. Note limiting the Paruchia P" in 
view of that of Brigit of Kildare, ib. 

Chapter VII. — Contents: Part vi ; Confessto Patricii. ixxix-xcii 

The title, Lihri S. P", Ixxix ; absence of Bpistola from our MS ; omission of portions of Confessio, ib. ; curtail- 
ment intentional, but injudicious, Ixxx. Genuineness of Conf. self-attested, ib. Its structure irregular, 
Ixxxi ; Prefaced by personal narrative ; his origin ; his early captivity and years of bondage, alleged in 
apology for ' rusticity,' ib. ; his spiritual experiences calling him to his mission, Ixxxii ; his flight, 
voyage with heathen shipmates, their wanderings in desert land (Gaul ?), failure of food, relief sent in 
answer to prayer, ib.\ 'second captivity,' and escape, Ixxxiii. After interval, returns to Britain; has 
vision there of one Victoricus bearing letter from Hiberio, and hears voices calling him ' from Silua 
Focluti, which is by the Western Sea,' ib. ; this the only place in Ireland named in Conf., ib. Gives 
thanks that he has obeyed their call, Ixxxiv ; further supernatural encouragements, ib. — Continuous 
narrative here ceases, passing into discursive record of adversities and hindrances, ib. ; especially the 
betrayal of his confidence by a false friend, and the harsh judgment of the 'Seniores' passed on him 
because of a sin of boyhood, ib.; the gracious reassurance sent, in a further vision, Ixxxv; his perils, 
sufferings, sacrifices, longings to revisit Britain and Gaul, ib. The successes of his labour, the care of his 
converts, detain him in Ireland, Ixxxvi. He has served without charge, at his own cost, ib. ; is willing to 
endure all, even to death, Ixxxvii. — The Book an Apology rather than Autobiography, ib. ; its blanks, ib. ; 
and incompleteness, ib. — Notes of time, rare and uncertain, Ixxxviii ; the writer's Icnowledge of Scripture 
conspicuous, implying long period of study, Ixxxix. Notes of place less rare, but inadequate, xc. 
Personal narrative suggestive of parallelism with life of St. Paul, xcii ; yet not thereby discredited, ib. 

Postscript to Chh. II-VII ; Summary. xciii-xcvi 

Compiler's aim through these documents to exalt Armagh as See of P., xciii. Its pre-eminence suggested in 
Muirchu I ; implied more distinctly in M. II, ib.; assumed as known and avowed as his theme by Tirechan 
(i and 11), xciv. Thus (A), both accept the tradition of P. in Armagh, xcv ; also {B), likewise that of 
P. at Tara, ib. ; [C), that of P. at Slemish, ib. {D), That of P. in Tirawley, he himself attests, ib. 
That of P. in Down, though coming through Muirchu only, may be safely accepted, xcvi. 

Supplemental Note, Zimmer's Theory. xcvii-c 

Z. distinguishes — (a) the historical P. (= Palladius) of Cent. V, with mission only to South-East Ireland, 
unsuccessful ; and (J) the legendary P., devised in South Ireland and in Cent. VII imposed on North (as 
in Muirchu), as Apostle of Ireland, with See at Armagh, xcvii,— But (i) P. himself attests his mission in 
West, ib. ; (2) Tir., independently of Muirchu, records his work in Meatli and North, xcviii.— Z. only 
proves P.'s work in South to have been limited and secondary, ib. — Other objections to Z.'s views, ib. 

Chapter Ylll.— History of MS. ci-cxvi 

MS written in Armagh, ci ; wrongly believed to be P.'s autograph, ib. j known as Canoin Phadraig, cii ; its 
cumdach and polaire, t J.— Contains record of King Brian's visit to Armagh (1002), ciii. Described by 
St. Bernard (1134), civ. Seized by De Courcy, but restored (1177), ib. Oaths sworn on it, ib. ; MS bears 
traces of this usage, cv. Hereditaiy Keepers of the Canon (Mac Moyres), cv ; notices of it in Centt. xiv- 
xvii, ib. Its Documents known to mediaeval writers of Vitae, cvi ; MS itself probably used by Jocelin 


(Cent, xii) for Vita vi, cvii.— In later times Ussher first consults it (1631); Ware first describes and 
prints Confessio from it (1656), cviii. — Last Keeper, Florence Mac M. (Wyre), enters his name in it, 1662 ; 
his history, xb.\ pawns MS (1680), cix ; dies 17 13, ex. — Arthur Brownlow its owner before 1707, ib.; 
E. Lhwyd's account of it, cxi j notes fragmentary state of Patrician records and loss of leaves of St. Matth., 
cxiii. Betham's Memoir of it and publication of its Patriciana (1827), xciii ; use of it by Petrie and others, 
cxiv ; Bishop Graves's study of it (in P.R.Z.A., 1846), determining name and date of scribe, ib.; also 
P.R.I.A., 1863, cxv. Purchased from William Brownlow by Bishop Reeves ; from him by Lord J. G. 
Beresford, Primate of All Ireland, and by him presented to Trinity College (1854), ib. — Patriciana edited 
from it by Hogan (Anal. Bolland., 1884-9), *• ; also by Whitley Stokes {V.T., 1887), cxvi ; its N.T. 
text (D) collated for W-W edition of Latin Vulgate, ib. — Reeves's Memoir (\%(i\), and Address (189 1); 
his proposed edition, and preparations, ib. — The erased Subscription as restored by Graves, ib. 

Chapter IX. — Detailed Description of MS. cxvii-cxxxiv 

Division A {Patriciana), if. 1-24 (f. i lost), cxvii ; present quire-gatherings arranged by Arthur Brownlow, ib. ; 
f. I how lost? cxviii. Its original gatherings, three quires, cxix. F. 1 when lost ? cxix. Before Ussher' s 
time, cxxi; some fifty years before the last MacMoyre parted with it, ib. Dry. A has no signature of 

scribe, no ornamental initials, cxxii. Div. B {Nov. Test. Vulg. Lat.), S. 25-191; fills 19 quires, 

with 10 extra if., cxxiii. Gospels, 7 ff. (prefatory), and 10 quires, ib.; ornamental initials, &c., ib.; four 
midmost ff. (41-44) of second quire lost, cxxiv ; each Gospel separable, ib. ; Greek characters sometimes 
used, ib. ; but ignorantly, cxxv ; subscriptions erased, ib. ; extracts from Pope Gregory's writings at end 
of St. John, ib. Signature of last Keeper, cxxvi. Penmanship finer in Gospels than elsewhere, 

especially in St. Joh., ib. ; Acts placed last in MS, cxxvii. Pauline Epp., 3 ff, (pref.) and 5 quires, 

ib. ; seemingly written earlier than Gospels, ib. ; form a separable book, cxxviii. Order of Epp., ib. ; 
Laodiceans included, ib. In Epp., Apocal., and Act., ornamental initials coloured, ib. — Catholic Epp., 
one quire, ib. — Apocalypse, one quire and one extra f., cxxix ; contents of the verso of this f., ib. — Acts, 

2 quires, ib. ; marginalia very numerous, ib. ; penmanship tending to be senile. Div. C {Life, (s'c, of 

St. Martin), ff. 192-222 ; 3 quires + I extra f., cxxx ; slight tokens of incompleteness, ib. ; effaced 
final subscription, cxxxi. — Whole MS in one handwriting, ib. ; its manner varied, earlier and later, 
in the several parts, ib. Conjecture hence as to construction of MS, cxxxiii. The ornamental initials, 
&c., cxxxiv ; Scribe not the artist, ib. 

Chapter X. — Contetits (resumed) : Part Vli ; New Testament. cxxxv-cclviii 

Section I. — Classification of MSS (Lat. Vulg.), cxxxv-cxlv. Subsect. i. Their variation inter se, cxxxv. Subsect. ii. 
Their Classes and Families, cxxxvi. Subsect, III. Our MS (D) of Celtic Family [vg text mixed with vt), ib. ; 
alone of its Family exhibits whole N.T., cxxxvii. Chief Celtic MSS, cxxxviii. Subsect. iv. D compared as 
to text with the others, ib. Subsect. v. 'Book of Durrow' unique among Irish, a nearly purew^, cxxxix. 
Subsect. VI. Genesis of Celtic text ; a pure vg basis, with vt admixture, cxl ; formed probably by Celtic 
scribes, cxli. Subsect. vii. The extant Irish vt MSS, ib. Probable process by which mixture took place, 
cxlii. Subsect. viil. Method pursued in the following Sections, cxliii ; Wordsworth and White's edition 
(W-W) oivgN.T., ib. ; their Classes of vg MSS, cxhv ; of vfMSS, cxlv. 

Section II. — D-Text of Gospels (St. Matth.), cxlv. Subsect. l. Variation by Additions (examples), cxlvi ; 
rarely of Bezan type, ib. Subsect. 11. By Omissions (examples), cxlvii ; mostly free from such, cxlviii. 
Subsect. III. By Substitutio?ts (examples), cxlviii. Doublet readings, cxlix. 

Section III. D-7'e»i(St. Mark),cl. Written with less care than the others, cl. Subsectt. i, 11, iii,iv. Additions, 

Omissions, Substitutions, Doublets (as in last Sect.), cl-cliii. A few vg corrections on mg., cliii. 

Section IV. D-Text (St. Luke), cliv. Subsect. I. Additions, cliv; not rare, but none of the large ones of Bezan 

type, ib. Subsect. II. Omissions, few and shght, clvii ; of the ' non-interpolations' of ch. xxiv, none in our 
MS, clix. Subsect. III. Substitutions, numerous, clix. Subsect. TV. Doublets \ some notable, clxiii. 

Section V. T)-Text (St. John), clxiv ; vg element here specially good, ib. ; (see notable instances, v. 4) ; its vt 

readings not remarkable, clxiv. Subsect. I. Additions, ib. Subsect. II. Omissions, clxvi ; only important 
one is not vt, ib. Subsect. III. Substitutions, very many, clxvii. Subsect. IV. Doublets, clxxi. 

Section VI. — General Survey, Gospel Text (D), clxxii. Its vg element fundamental, and of good type, clxxiii ; 
its affinity with Durrow text, ib. ; vt element large, but unevenly distributed, and of varying type, clxxiv ; 
of Bezan type rarely, clxxv. Direct corrections after Gr. alleged (W-W), but questionable, ib. Doublets 
not frequent in Celtic text, except MS Q (Kells), clxxvi. Some exceptional readings, clxxvii. 

Section VII. — Text of Acts. D-text of Acts unique, clxxvii. Subsect. i. Method pursued in this Section, and 
Materials used, ib.; yissoivg, their Families, clxxviii ; otvt, clxxix; only one of these {gg) complete, ib. 
Variations more, and graver, than in Gospels, clxxx. Subsect. II. Variation by Additions, very many and 
important, ib. Subsect. III. Omissions, fewer and less notable, clxxxvi. Subsect. iv. Substitutions, most 
serious ; widely divergent from normal, cxc. Subsect. V. Doublets, due to unskilful insertions, cciv ; 
examples of stages of a doublet, ccvii ; two notable singular readings of D, ib. Subsect. vi. General 
Survey of D-text of Acts, ccviii; (i) estimate of it in W-W edition inadequate, ib.; (2) special purity 


of vg basis in this Book, ib. ; its place in Classis I, ib. ; its affinities with the other MSS, ccix ; (3) has 
less of trivial variation than in Gospels, ib. (4) Its vt element much more strongly marked than in 
Gospels, ib. ; but irregularly distributed, ccx ; its vt readings very often of Bezan type, ib. ; many also 
Harklensian (later Syr. Version), ib. ; some singular or subsingular, ccxi ; some coincident with Bohemian 
Version, ib. ; frequency and clumsiness of its Doublets (conflate or dittograph), ccxii. Its supposed 
corrections after the Gr., ib.; probably represent some vt texts now non-extant, ib. Probable genesis 
of D-text of this Book, ib. 
Section VIII. — Pauline Epistles. Sub.iect. 1. Preliminary, ccxiii ; guidance of W-W, and its supply of materials, 
lacking here, and in the rest, ib. D-text here compared with {pg) A, F (Amiat., Fuld.), and a few more, 
ib. ; also with (^t) d g r, and patristic citations, ccxiv. Subsect. II. D with d g, against A, ib. Subsect. III. 
D d against A^, ccxv. Subsect. IV. T> g against A d, ccxvi. Subsect. v. D i^ against A.dg, ccxvii. 
Subsect. VI. D with other vt (patristic) against A. Subsect. vil. Singular readings of D ; and doublets, ccxx. 
Subsect. VIII. D-text of Hebrews, ccxxi. Subsect. IX. Results of foregoing, ccxxiii ; D mostly with {vg) 
A, F, or both, ib. ; with (vt) gmote than d; when with neither, has frequent patristic support, ib. ; notably 
Hilary (Ambrstr.), and Theodore Mops., ib. 
Section IX. — Catholic Epistles. Subsect. I. Materials scanty (vg and vt) as in last, ccxxiv ; except (vt) as to 
St. James, ib. Subsect. II. D-text (vt) of St. James, ccxxv ; one vt ms (ff) complete ; m and s (frag- 
mentary) ; all three distinct inter se, ib. ; D with these vtt singly or in combinations against A, ib. ; such 
instances scanty and trivial, ccxxvi; D, without z/^ support, against A, ccxxvii ; D sol., ib. ; Doublets, ib. 
Subsect. III. D-text of the other Cath. Epp., ccxxviii ; (a) Examples (unclassified) — (i) i Pet., ib. ; 
(2) 2 Pet., ccxxx ; (3) i John, ccxxxi ; (4, 5, 6) 2 Joh., 3 Joh., Jude, ccxxxiii. (*) Doublets (in i & 2 Pet. ; 
and I & 3 Joh.), ib. ; (c) D in these six Epp. singular among Lat., ccxxxiv; {d) D with A, &c., in wrong 
or doubtful readings, ccxxxvi ; D with A, &c., in right or probable readings, ccxxxvii ; notably (with AF) 
1 Joh. V. 7, ccxxxviii. Subsect. iv. Marginal readings, ib. In this Sect., D with A rather than with F, 
ccxxxix ; superiority of F, ib. 
Section X. — Apocalypse. Subsect. i. Materials available ; vg as in Sect. IX, ccxxxix -jlvt better represented, ccxl ; 
one vt complete (gg, as in Acts) ; another (pr) preserved in Primasius (Commentary) ; also k m (as in 
Acts), ib. Comparison in this Sect, of D-text with vtt, whether against or with A, ccxl. Subsect. 11. 
D with gg against or without pr (h), ib. Subsect. III. D with pr (h) against gg, ccxliv. Subsect. IV. 
D with vt, with or without vg, ccxlvii. Subsect. V. D with some vg against vt, ccxlix. Subsect. vi. 
D sol (Lat.), ccliii. Doublets, cclvi. Subsect. VII. Results as to D-text, ib. ; Of D gg, examples many, 
but not important, cclvii ; of D pr (h), fewer, but more notable, ib. ; with D gg pr (k), mostly trivial, ib. 
These two, gg pr, independent of each other, ib, ; basis of D perhaps a vg akin to gg, ib. ; D pr readings 
seem interpolations from alien source, ib. ; vg element in D-Apoc, of good type, closer to F than to A, 
cclviii ; sometimes better than either, ib. ; Cases of D with Gr. against all extant Zat. numerous, ib. — Note 
on usage as to sedes, thronus, ib. 

Chapter XI. — Contents: Part Vlll. Life, &c., of St. Martin, by Sulpicius 

beverus. cclix-cclxxviii 

Section I. — Outlines and Chronology of Life. Memoirs of Martin why included in our MS ? cclix. His parentage 
and early life, cclx ; his military service, ib. ; leaves army after two years, ib. ; disciple of Hilary of 
Poictiers, and by him ordained exorcist, ib. Revisits parents, ib, ; persecuted by Arians, ib. ; shelters 
in island (Gallinaria), ib, ; returns to Poictiers ; founds monastery near ; attains fame of sanctity and 
miracle-working, ib. Elected Bishop of Tours, ccUi ; his evangelic labours and success, ib. ; his interven- 
tions in State affairs, with Valentinian I, Justina, Maximus ; and his dignified attitude, ib. Humane 
interposition on behalf of Priscillian and his followers, cclxi; in co-operation with St. Ambrose, cclxiii. 
Chronology of life (according to Sulpicius), cclxiv ; differs from that of Gregory of Tours, ib. 

Section II. — The Author of Vita, &'c. Sulpicius a younger contemporary of M., cclxv ; presbyter of Aquitaine, 
ib. ; his writings as included in our MS {Vita, Dialogi, Epistolae), ib. ; an Epistle, and the Chronicon, not 
so included, ib. Particulars of his life, ib. ; his first introduction to M., ib. ; Vita published in M.'s 
lifetime, cclxvi ; Epp. and Diall. soon after M.'s death, ib, ; wide popularity of these works, ib. ; attested 
by great number of MSS, ib. ; their historical value and literary merit, ib. ; printed editions from and after 
1500, ib. Structure and substance of Dialogues, cclxviii. 

Section III. — Text as presented in our MS (D). Prof Babul's study of D, cclxvii. Two Families of texts of Sulp., 

Ital. and Franco-Gall. (Prankish), ib. ; Ital., Brix. (B), and Veron. (V) only ; Frank., AFQ, &c., ib. 

(I) D with Ital. presents the Diall. as two Books (the original division) ; Frank., as three (by dividing 
Dial. I into two), ib. ; D alone retains their titles — (l) Postumianus and (2) Gallus, cclxviii. (II) (a) D 
alone retains, in Dial. II (III, 15, 16) against both Ital. and Frank., the suppressed episode of Bricius, 
cclxix; {&) D with V alone retains the Apocalyptic passage in Dial. I (II, 14), cclxx. (Ill) Thus 
D alone gives original uncensored text of early Cent, v, ib. (IV) This result verified by collations, 
extending to Epp., Gallus (Dial. II (III), and pt. 2 of Postum. {Dial, I (II)), cclxxii ; D therefore 



represents a tradition earlier than that of either Ital. or Frank., cclxxiii. But in Dial. I (I) (pt. i of 
Postum.), and in Vita, D sometimes deviates towards Frank., cclxxiii. Prof. Babul's explanation of this 
fact, cclxxiv. Importance of D in establishing text ; but frequent inaccuracies, cclxxv. Bricius-episode 
attested by another Irish MS (Leahhar Breac), ib. 

Section V^.— Supplementary. Another passage restored by D to Dial. II (III, i8), cclxxvi ; cryptic reference 
in it and in Dial. I, 12, to an unnamed person who has injured Sulp., ib. This person identified as 
Vigilantius, Jerome's adversary, ib. ; on evidence of letters to S. from Paulinus of Nola, cclxxvii. 
Personal history of V., early Ufe, and relations with S., ib. ; he becomes hostile to Jerome and asceticism, 
and publishes an attack, cclxxviii ; replied to by Jerome (Adv. Vigilant.), ib. The Diall. in this aspect 
are S.'s reply to same, cclxxviii. 

Textual Notes, ........... 


Text of MS reproduced lineatim et paginatim. 

A. Patrician Documents. 
Muirchu, 3-16 ; Tirechan, 17-30 ; Additamenta, 30-36 ; Notulae, 36-37 ; Misplaced Praef., &c., to 
Muirchu, 39, 40 ; Lib. Angeli, 40-43 ; P" Confessio, 43-48. 


B. Nov. Testamenlum [Vulg.). 49-375 

Praef. and Tables for Gospels, 49-64 ; Gospels, 65-201 ; Extracts from Gregor., Moralia, 201 ; Praef. to 
Pauline Epp., 205-210; Epistt. [Paul.), 211-292; Epistt. (Cathol.), 295-312; Apocal., 314-335; 
Homiletic Notes, 336 ; Acts, 337-375. 

C. Life, dfc, 0/ St. Martin. 377-438 

Vita [lib. i], 377-395 ; Dial. I [lib. ii], Postumianus, 396-423 ; Dial. II [lib. iii], Gallus, 423-434 ; Epist. I, 

434. 435 ; •£2>"'- n, 436-438. 
Appendices — A-G, 441-478 

A. jff-text of Muirchu, 442. — B. Restoration of pp. 12, 13, 454. — C. Translation of Irish Records, 456. — 
D. Notulae interpreted, 458. — ^E. Patrick, (i) Confessio, omitted passages, 466 ; (2) Epistola, text, 468. — 
F. Irish Marginalia, 471 ; Note to Appx. C, 475. — Gr. Prologues, &c., to Epp. Paul., 476. 






face page 

I. F° 

. 18 v° (p. 36) 

Col. a ; End of Irish Additamenta. Col. b ; Scribe's Apology ; 

Beginning of Notulae, ...... 


II. (A) 

24 V (p. 48) 

End of Confessio S. Patricii, ...... 

\ Hii 


53 v° (p. 100) 

S. Matth. xxviii. 19, 20, , 



102 r" (p. 197) 

S. Joh. xviii. 19 — xix. 6, .... . . , 



127 r» (p. 247) 

2 Corinth, xi. 20 — xii. 11, 



170 v° (p. 334) 

Revel, xxi. 20— xxii. 18, ...... . 



17s v (p. 344) 

Act. vi. 9 — ^vii. 18, .... . 


In Text 

S3 V (p. 100) 

Colophon to S. Matth. as restored by Dr. Graves (from P. R.I. A., 

On page 

vol. Ill (1846), p. 316), 


171 r° (P- 355) 

Ciuitas sea Hierusalem in quadro posita (Rev. xxl. 10, 16), 



In printing the text of the MS, italics are employed (except in the Martinian Memoirs) to distinguish letters, 
syllables, or words, which in the MS are represented by symbols or by marks of contraction. 

The abbreviations ins, om, and the like, in the Introduction, Notes, and Appendices, are employed in their usual 

The letters A, B, C, &c., denoting Vulgate Latin MSS, and u, b, c, Sec, for Old-Latin MSS, are explained in 
Chapter X. 



The Book of Armagh is a small, square volume, measuring'in height yf inches ; 
in breadth 5f ; in thickness 2 j : consisting originally of 222 leaves of vellum, on 
each side of which the writing is arranged mostly in double columns. Its 
contents are — (i) Documents (most of them in Latin, but a few in Irish) relating 
to St. Patrick, (2) The New Testament (Vulgate), (3) The Life, &c., of St. Martin. 
The penmanship is of extreme elegance, and is admirable throughout for 
its distinctness and uniformity. The character is (with few exceptions, to be 
noticed farther on) a minuscule of the type described as "pointed Irish," 
which is employed alike for the Latin and the Irish documents and notes. 

The first leaf is wanting ; and also four leaves of the Gospel of St. Matthew 
(ff. 41—44), being the two insets of a quire or "gathering," which originally 
was a quaternio of four sheets (ff. 40—47),^ containing the matter between adora- 
verunt (chap. xiv. 33) and quod dictum est (xxi. 4). These four leaves were 
wanting before the ms. passed (about 1680, as will presently appear) from its last 
hereditary Keeper ; for on the upper margin of f. 46 r" there is a memorandum, in 
a small hand of the sixteenth century, "hie multa desunt." Edward Lhwyd, writing 
of this MS. in 1707, observes, " nota quod in Evangelio secundum Matthaeum deside- 
rantur quatuor {ut ego existimo) folia." There is no other chasm in the volume : it 
is still, with these exceptions, complete. Its leaves, as we now have them, are 
numbered in Arabic figures, inserted (as the same authority informs us') 
by Mr. Brownlow, into whose possession it had recently passed when Lhwyd 
described it. 

Mr. Brownlow, supposing that only three leaves were lost after f. 41, numbers the next extant 
leaf 45' (instead of 46), and so on to the 222nd and last leaf, which he marks '221.' Apparently 
Lhwyd's words, "quatuor (ut ego existimo) yo/z'a," were meant as a correction of this reckoning*; and 
rightly, for the missing portion of the Gospel text would, as appears by measurement, fill four leaves, 

1 This Chapter, and also Chapter viii., are mainly compiled from Dr. Reeves's Memoir of i86i, and his 
Paper On the Book of Armagh, in Proc. R.I. A., Series in., vol. ii., p, ■]•] (1891). The Editor has added 
a few paragraphs and notes. 

2 For the numbering of the leaves, see note », below. 

3 See Chapter viii., infr., for these leaves, and for Lhwyd's account of the MS. 

* In printing the text this correction has been made (see pp. 83 sqq,, infr.) ; and the number of each 
folio accordingly, after f. 41, exceeds by i the figure inserted in the MS.— [Ed.] 



and could not be contained in three. Moreover, the arrangement of the ms. in the usual quires (or 
" gatherings") of sheets — usually four or five {quaterniones or quiniones), folded into pairs {" diplomata") 
of leaves, the first pair enclosing the second, and so on— makes it certain that when accidental losses 
of leaves occurred, they would occur in pairs, save in the exceptional case where one leaf of a pair 
had become severed from its conjugate. Such a case seems to present itself at the very beginning of 
our MS. ; for the missing first leaf must have been conjugate with the twelfth, and formed with it the 
outermost sheet of the first "gathering" (a sento), or quire of six sheets. Of the damaged state of the 
twelfth leaf, which caused it to become detached from the first, more is to be said later on' ; here, it 
is only to be noted that Brownlow places on the first extant leaf the figure ' 2.' This fact has been 
represented as a proof that in his time f. i had not been lost. But it is equally consistent with the 
supposition that, in marking the leaf as ' 2,' he did so, not because f. i was forthcoming, but because 
he perceived that the ms. began with a quire of twelve leaves, of which the twelfth was loose and the 
first was missing ; just as in numbering the leaf after f. 41 as '45,' he implies, not that if. 42, 43, 44 
were extant, but that he was aware of their absence. — [Ed. J 

It will be convenient here to describe in detail the construction of the volume. 
The MS. is arranged for the most part in quires, as above stated. These are of varied size, most 
of them being quaterniones or quiniones, but a few of a greater or less number of diplomata, the number 
being usually determined by the contents, so as to make each of the literary divisions of the book 
occupy a complete quire or quires. Thus (i) the first three quires {senio, quaternio, binid) contain the 
Patrician documents: (ii) the New Testament fills eighteen, disposed as follows — (i) Gospels, ten 
(six quaterniones, one quinio, three terniones) ; (2) Pauline Epistles, five (one quinio and four quaterniones) \ 
(3) Catholic Epistles, one {2, quinio); (4) Apocalypse, one {(quinio); (5) Acts, two {quiniones): (iii) the 
Life, &c., of St. Martin occupy the remaining three (one quinio, one senio, one quaternio). In all, 
there are twenty-five quires ; two seniones, seven quiniones, twelve quaterniones, three terniones, and 
one binio. 

Thus each of the three natural divisions of the ms. is in fact a distinct volume, capable of being 
used separately; and it is quite possible that each may have originally had (or been meant to have) a 
several existence before all were joined together to form collectively the Book of Armagh. However 
this may be, it is to be further noted that the scribe, when he combined his twenty-five quires into the 
present volume, interposed a few connecting single leaves, or pairs of leaves, at the points of junction 
of the divisions or (sometimes) subdivisions. To the Biblical division are prefixed three such pairs, 
with a single leaf appended, containing matter preliminary to the Gospels ; and similarly one pair, 
with one leaf, follow the Gospels and introduce the Epistles ; while the Apocalypse overflows its 
quinio, and ends on the recto of an appended leaf ; which again serves a double use, bearing on its v° 
notes relating to Acts i., which begins on the r' of the first leaf of the next quire. — [Ed. j 

There is no date entered in the ms. ; but the name of the scribe, Ferdomnach 
(= uir dominicus), appears to have been subscribed in at least four places, in the 
formula, ''Pro Ferdomnacho ores'' ^ ; namely, end of St. Mark (f. 682/°, b\ end of 
St. Luke (90 r", b), end of Life of St. Martin, Lib. 11. (215 r\ a), end of Epistle of 
Sulpicius (221 r\ b). Of these subscriptions, the first and second have become 
utterly indiscernible, partly by old erasure and partly by later injudicious applica- 
tion of tincture of galls. The remaining two are still discernible; the third 
perfectly legible to good sight, the fourth evidently identical with it.^ We know 
from the Annals of Ulster^ the date of a scribe Ferdomnach, who has been (as will 
be shown) identified beyond reasonable doubt as the writer of these signatures. 
Under a.d. 845 appears the obit, ''Ferdomnach sapiens et scriba optimus Airddmachae" 
— a true and modest encomium. It appears faint praise to one who examines his 

' See Chapter IX., infr. 

^ See Chapter VIII., infr., and cp. pp. 423 a, 43515. 

3 Hennessy's edition, t. I., p. 350. See also Four MM., s.a. 844 (O'Donovan's edition, t. I., p. 470). 


handiwork in this the solitary surviving example of his skill, which no doubt 
was exercised in many like performances that have disappeared. 

In a most able memoir on the age of our ms., read before the Royal Irish 
Academy in 1846,^ the Rev. Charles Graves, Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin 
(afterwards Bishop of Limerick), gave the result of a very careful examination 
made by him in that year. He had succeeded in deciphering part of another sub- 
scription, appended by the scribe to St. Matthew's Gospel (f. 53 v", a), and with 
that critical acumen and exactness of judgment which always characterized his 
investigations, produced a restoration of it, singularly convincing, and sufficiently 
complete to determine the date of writing accurately. His conclusion is, that 
the scribe was the Ferdomnach above mentioned, and that he completed the 
transcription of the First Gospel, under the Primacy of Torbach, in 807. 

Here, then, we have before us the writing of a choice Irish scribe, a consum- 
mate artist in calligraphy; which, though 1097 years old, is for the most part as 
legible as if written yesterday. Thus an age is assigned to this national monu- 
ment, which, though it falls far short of that of many other Latin manuscripts, not 
to speak of those in Greek or other languages, yet reaches to a very respectable 
antiquity, numbering almost eleven centuries. The orthography of the Latin in 
which it is written (only a page or two, and a few paragraphs of its first division, 
and some scattered notes in the rest of the book, being in Irish) is such as was 
current in the Western Church during the early and middle ages. What renders it 
an object of special interest is the fact that it is the only copy of the complete New 
Testament which has been transmitted to our time from the ancient Irish Church. 
Ireland was in early times famous for the ample provision of copies of the Latin 
Scriptures which it possessed, and was much resorted to as a safe, peaceable, and 
well-furnished abode for religious study. But one after another the books of 
sacred learning perished : what the Danes spared, fire consumed ; and what was 
fortified against fire, was soon reduced to decay by damp. And thus, of all the 
Latin Bible mss. which existed in Ireland, not one copy of the Old Testament has 
been preserved, or of any part thereof, except a mutilated copy of the Psalms^ ; 
and the survival of this we owe to the veneration in which it was held, being 
supposed to be in St. Columba's handwriting, and encased in a costly shrine of 
silver. Copies of the Latin Gospels, more or less perfect, possessing all the 
characteristics of the Irish school of writing, are preserved in the Library of 
Trinity College, Dublin (of which the Book of Durrow and the Book of Kells are 
the most remarkable'), and elsewhere. A volume of St. Paul's Epistles, copied 
by an Irish scribe, in Latin, with interlinear Irish notes, is to be seen at Wiirzburg* 
in Bavaria ; but it does not include the rest of the New Testament. The Book of 

i I'roc. R.I. A., yol. iii. (1846), pp.316 Jj?'^'. A summary of his results will be found in Chap, viii., t'n/r. 

' The Cathach. See Gilbert, National MSS. of Ireland, p. 7 (8vo edn.) ; also in A^^endix to Fourth 
Report of the Royal Commission on Historical MSS., 1874, p. 583. 

' Gilbert, National MSS., pp. 10-21. 

* Shelf-mark in Wiirzburg University Library, M.Th. f. 12. See Prof. Zimmer, Glossae Hib., p. ix ; 
and Dr. Whitley Stokes, Old Irish Glosses. 



Armagh stands forth, to the student of Biblical literature, without a rival in the 
whole range of Irish antiquity, as the only entire New Testament as read in 
the early Irish Church, and copied by Irish scribes, that is now extant. 

The Venerable Bede relates, under a.d. 664 (the year of the Great Mortality), 
that a multitude of nobles, as well as men of inferior rank, ''de gente Anglorum,'' 
had migrated from England to Ireland " in the time of the Bishops Finan and 
Colman" [652 and after], where they found a cordial welcome. He writes 
(Lib. III., c. xxvii.) : — ''Quosomnes Scotti libentissime suscipientes, victum eis quotidianum 
sine pretio, libros quoque ad legendum, et magisterium gratuitum praebere curabant ' : 
whence we learn that, in the middle of the seventh century, books had been 
largely multiplied in Ireland ; and that, to this end, the art of writing had been 
practised for a sufficiently long period to guarantee ease and elegance to the 
work. So honourable had the title of Scribe {Scribhnidh) become, that in the 
Irish Annals it is often used to enhance the celebrity of the Abbot or Bishop ; 
nay, we sometimes find, in the recital of honours, the "accomplished Scribe" 
commemorated, with the dignity of Bishop, or Abbot, or both, attached, as an 
accident of office. When, in process of time, the duty of theological instruction 
was added to the practice and teaching of penmanship, the more honourable title 
oi Ferleghin'n} {"vir kdionis'^ or '^praeledor'^) was adopted, corresponding in office 
(and function) to the magister (and magisteriunt) of Bede^ ; and of such a teacher 
Bede speaks {ib., <:. xiii) as " Scholasticus de gente Scottorum.^^ In Armagh, where 
was a seminary of great and early repute, the last recorded Scribhnidh appears in 
the Annals at the year 844—5, ^"^ the first Ferleghinn at 876—8'; and under this 
latter title the succession is continued. 

During this long period there subsisted in Armagh a series of learned men, 
whose honour, as well as monastic service, was to multiply books, and supply the 
literary requirements of a studious community. Thus it is recorded {sub anno 
721—4) that " S. Colman hUamach ['of the cave,' probably a recluse], Scribe of 
Armagh, died." Again (726—31), that "Ferdomnach, Scribe of Armagh, died." 
Again (807—12), that " Torbach, son of Gorman, Scribe, Lector, and Abbot of 
Armagh [observe the order of his offices], died."* This is the Torbach who, as 
will presently be shown, ^ was presumably the prelate at whose bidding the Book 
of Armagh was written ; — himself a scribe, the patron, and probably also the 
instructor, of the second Ferdomnach of Armagh, the actual penman, who was 
engaged on it in 807, and died in 845.^ 

1 See Colgan, Trias Th., pp. 631, 632. 

2 See Appendix xvii. of Smith's Bede (Cantab., 1722), p. 746 ; also Hussey's (Oxon., 1846), p. 170. 

3 Ann. t/li., t. I., pp. 350, 394 : Four MM., I,, pp. 470, 522. 

* Uli. I., pp. 176, 186, 292 : Four MM. I., pp. 318, 324, 420. 

* See Chap, viii., mfr. ' See p. xv, su^r. 




The Book of Armagh consists, as we have seen, of three main portions, which 
are in fact three distinct books, namely : — I. The Documents relating to 
St. Patrick. II. The New Testament. III. The Life of St. Martin of 

Of the first of these portions we proceed to treat in this and the five 
following Chapters. 

The Patrician Documents are four in number. They are — (i) The Life 
of St. Patrick,, written by Muirchu ; (2) Memoirs of his Mission, compiled by 
Tirechan ; (3) A Book {^^ Liber Angeli^^) of the rights and usages of the Church 
of Armagh ; (4) The Confession of St. Patrick. Of these the second is followed 
by a collection of supplementary records ; to it, and to the first and third, are 
attached a few notes. 

Of (i) a second copy exists, to be described presently. For (2), with its supplementary matter, 
as also for (3), our ms. is the sole authority. Of (4), other copies, later but fuller, are forthcoming. 

The Life by Muirchu is in two Books : Book i. ending on f. 7 r" (p. 13, in/r.); 
Book II. occupying f. 7 v° and f. 8 (pp. 14-16). 

It is necessary to premise that this document, as it now appears in our MS., has come to us in 
a form which is in three respects defective : — {a) by accidental mutilation, {b) by original misplace- 
ment of its parts, {c) by omission (whether casual or intentional). 

{a) The mutilation has deprived the MS. of its first leaf. This loss is due (as will be shown 
below. Chapter ix.) to the decay of the inner margin of the conjugate leaf (the twelfth), caused 
by early and continued maltreatment, the effects of which are painfully visible on the stained and 
disfigured verso of the latter, and of the page facing it (ff. \zv°, 13 r°). 

(^) The misplacement consists in this, that the Preface to the Life, with Table of Contents of the 
first of the two Books into which it is divided, instead of standing in their proper place in the fore- 
front of the Life which they introduce, are to be looked for in f. 20, placed not only after the body 
of the Life, but after the supplements to Tirechan (Document (2)). This misplacement is due (not 
to the binder, but) to the original construction of the volume as put together by the scribe ; for on 
the verso of f, 20, after the conclusion of the Table of Titles, he proceeds with Document (3). 

(c) The omission is apparent by comparison of this Table with the text. The Table gives the 
tituli of thirty (properly twenty-nine : see next page, notes * and ') capita. Of these, three are 
wanting from the text, in which, after the twenty-sixth, the scribe writes : " Finit primus, incipit 
secundus liber." 

In order therefore to study Muirchu's work in its completeness, the reader is to begin with f. 20, 


where (pp. 39, 40, infr.) he will find the Preface and Table. He must then turn to pp. 443 sqq., tnfr., 
in which {Appendix A, at end of this volume) the text of Muirchu's Book i. is printed from the other 
MS. above referred to (distinguished as B).^ He will there read (pp. 443, 444a) its opening capita 
{cc. 1-6, and part of 7), which are lost from our MS. {A) with the missing f. i, but recovered from B. 
After that, he will find the rest of Book i. of the Life given in regular course, pp. 3-15, infr. ; but 
for the three omitted capita at the end of it, he must again look to Appendix A (pp. 448, 449), where 
they are given as part of the text of the same MS. B. 

It is to be noted that the six and a half opening capita supplied from B contain just sufficient 
matter to fill (allowing for a few lines of superscription) the missing f. i. 

Book II. of the Life is complete in our ms., and occupies pp. 14-16, infr. 

In the Preface to the Life (p. 39 a, infr.), the author, in an exordium modelled 
on that of the Gospel of St. Luke, refers to the failure of many previous attempts 
to gather into one record the traditions of the earliest preaching of the Word in 
Ireland. He then, in somewhat high-flown style, proceeds to lament the diffi- 
culties that beset the undertaking, acknowledging his own defect of skill and the 
inadequacy of his materials. Yet, in obedience to the command of " his lord 
Aedh," he prepares " to unfold a few of the many actions^ of St. Patrick." These 
he then sets forth in a Table (p. 39(5, infr.), under thirty tituli,^ subscribing at the 
end his own name, Muirchu Maccu Machtheni, as author, and that of Aedh (whom 
he describes as Bishop of Sletty) as the " dictator" of this work. 

These tituli, with slight deviations from the order, correspond with the actual text of Book i. to 
which they relate, as given in our ms., so far as it extends. But, as above stated, A has lost the first 
six capita and part of f . 7 ; and it never contained the last three (27, 28, 29) which the Table indicates. 
The MS. B exhibits the lost capita duly; — and also the three omitted from A, but in different order. 

Here follow the tituli, correctly numbered, and referred to their places in the printed text.* 

1. De ortu Patricii . . . infr. p. 443 a 16. De gressu regis Loiguiri ad Patricium ... p. 8 3 

2. De nauigio eius . . . 443 3 17. De uocatione Patricii ad regent ... '] a 

3. De secunda captura ... ib. iS. De ira regis et suorum ... '] a 

4. De susceptione a parentihus . . . 444^ 19- De adueniu Patricii . . ad Temoriam ... 8 a 

5. De aetate eius quando iens . . . ib. 20. De conflictu Patricii aduersus magum ... qa 

6. De inuentione S. Germani ... ?3. 21. De conuersione regis Loiguiri ... 10 b 

7. De aetate eius quando uisitauit . . . ib., and 3 a zz. De doctrina et baptismate signisque ... 10 b 

8. De reuersione eius de Gallis ... 3 <^ 23- De Mace Cuill ... iob 

9. De ordinatione eius ... 3 3 24. De fabula Dairi . . . izb 

10. De rege geniili habito in Temoria ... 3 5 25. De gentibus laborantibus die dominica ... 12 a 

11. De prima eius itinere in hac insula ... 4 3 26. De fructifera terra in salsuginem uersa ... 13 3 

12. De morte Milcon ... 5 ^ 27. Z'« morte Moneisen . . . 448 b 

13. De consilio . . . de celebratione primi pascae.^ 5 b 28. De eo quod S. Patricius uidit caelum . . . 449 b 

14. De oUatione prima pasca ... 6 a 29. Z?« conflictu . . . aduersum Coirtheck . . . 449 a 

15. De festiuitate gentili in Temoria ... 6 a 

1 This MS. is No. 64 of the Royal Library, Brussels. It contains Book i. of Muirchu's Life, unmu- 
tilated, but defective by omission of some cafita — fortunately, however, supplying those which are lacking 
to A — and of the Preface and Table. From it cc. 1-7, and 28-30 (which in it stand as 27, 29, 28), were 
first published by the Rev. Father Edmund Hogan, S.J., in Analecta Bollandiana (1882), and afterwards 
separately (1884). In these editions, Muirchu's whole work, with his Preface and lable, is given in its 
due order. 

'^ In the words " Pauca haec de muUis S. Patricii gestis," Dr. Bury {Guardian for Nov. 27, 1901, 
p. 1647 a) understands the " gesta" to be written Acts ; but the rendering above given seems more natural. 

' Properly there are but twenty-nine (see note ^ below). Also Nos. 25, 26 are transposed. 

' Note that henceforth, in all references, the numbering of this Table is followed, irrespective of the 
order in the text. 

5 This titulus is in A wrongly divided into two, the scribe having supposed "& celebraiione" to 
begin a new one. 


This Preface thus determines for us the authorship of the Life, and (approxi- 
mately) its date. Aedh, Bishop of Sletty, under whose direction it was written, 
and who presumably supplied much of its material, is a noted personage. His obit 
appears in the Annals of Ulster, s. a. 699 (torn, i., p. 148) ; and his name is 
among those subscribed to the Acts of the Synod of Adamnan {circ. 695-7), at 
which " Murchu Mac U Macteni" was also present.^ The Life (at least Book i.) 
is therefore to be assigned to the close of the seventh century ; Book 11, perhaps 
to the beginning of the eighth.^ The author claims for it that it is the first 
formal narrative of the early days of the Gospel in Ireland ; and not only so, but 
that no like history had been previously produced by any [Irish] writer, except 
the work of his own "father, Cogitosus." That work is the Life of St. Brigid, 
which comes to us from an author bearing that strangely-formed name,' the result, 
no doubt, of an attempt to Latinize Machtheni. It appears, therefore, that the 
biographer of Patrick is son of the biographer of Brigid ; and the Life of Brigid 
is the earlier work of the two. 

Thus, in determining the date of Muirchu, we learn incidentally that Cogitosus (= Machtheni, 
properly Machteni) and his Life of Brigid belong to the seventh century, and not (as previously 
supposed) to the ninth or later; an important result, in view of the details that Life gives of the 
Church of Kildare. 

It is to be noted that the connexion thus established between the two Lives, and their authors, 
and all that follows from it, rest on a restoration of the true text of the Preface, For the unmeaning 
" cognito si patris mei" (p. 39 a;, line 18), Bishop Graves, by a happy conjecture, proposed to read 
'■'■ Coguitosi patris mei" [coguito for cogito, as anguelus for angelus, in Ferdomnach's habitual ortho- 
graphy] ; — an emendation unsurpassed for acuteness, and so convincing that it has been since adopted 
by all who have treated of these Lives.*' 

When from the Preface we turn to the biography which it introduces, we note 
in it a distinct attempt, though not fully carried out, at literary form. From 
c. I of Book I. to the end of c. 22 (which closes after the pattern of St. Mark's 
conclusion, as the Preface begins with an imitation of St. Luke's opening),' the 
narrative is continuous, fairly well constructed, and has a certain unity of plan and 
scope. It relates in due order the parentage and youthful life of the Saint, his 
captivity in Ireland, his escape, and his early call to the work of evangelization ; 
then his training in Gaul, his return to Ireland for his great mission ; its opening in 
Down ; its signal triumph at Tara, the stronghold of Irish royalty and heathenism, 
which he treats as virtually the conquest of Ireland for Christ. At this point he 
pauses : so far he has been able so to work up his materials as to observe — or to 
assume — an orderly succession of events in his story. But for the rest of Book i. 
he gives {cc. 23-29) a mere string of incidents, unrelated inter se, and with no notes 

' Reeves, Adamnan, pp. 1, li, note e (Appendix to Preface). Muirchu is commemorated with his 
brother Meadhran, on 8 June (Colgan, Acta SS. Hib., p. 465 a [cited by Reeves]). 

2 Zimmer {^Celtic Church, p. 13 of transl. by A. Meyer) calls Book 11. an "Appendix," assigning it to 
an eighth-century continuator, but without reason. The internal evidence of style stamps it as Muirchu's. 

3 Tr. Th., pp. 518 sqq. 

* Proc. R.I. A. (1863), vol. viii., pp. 269 sqq. Graves points out that there is a certain affinity in style 
and diction between Muirchu's work and that of Cogitosus. 

5 St. Mark xvi. 20 ; St. Luke i. i, 2. In both places Muirchu reproduces the words of the Vulgate. 


of sequence — either because he lacked skill to mould them into continuity of 
narration ; or because he had no certainty as to the order in which they occurred, 
and therefore discreetly forbore to attempt an arrangement which could only be 

Thus Book I. naturally divides itself— and the editor of the ms. B has accord- 
ingly divided it — into two parts :— (i) the regular Narrative of St. Patrick's course, 
from his earliest years to that which he represents as the climax of his mission ; 
(ii) the Appendix of miracles, arranged apparently at haphazard — certainly with 
no notes of chronological sequence. The connexion of the Narrative proper with 
this Appendix is but slight, — it lies in the closing words of the former {c. 22), 
which tell us that his mission was marked by ^^ sequentibus signis.^^ Cc. 22, et sqq. 
to end of the Book record these signa. 

The chapters of the Narrative again fall naturally into four groups, corre- 
sponding with four periods of his course: — {a) Patrick's early life in Britain and 
Ireland {cc. 1-4); {b) Patrick's preparation in Gaul {cc, 5-9) ; (c) Patrick's mission 
begun in Down and Antrim {cc, 11-13); {d) Patrick's mission fulfilled at Tara, 
and onward {cc. 10, 14-22). 

It will be observed that of these twenty-two chapters, one only breaks the 
arrangement here indicated, — c. 10, in which the King and his Magi and their 
predictions are introduced before the landing of the Saint is related (between 
groups b and <;), instead of in their proper place (in d\ where he is about to 
approach Tara.^ It would properly stand, and no doubt originally stood, imme- 
diately before <:. 15 ; so that the present cc. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 would be 11, 12, 
13, 14, 10. 

For the history of the first of these periods (group a), it is plain where Muirchu 
found most of his material. The capita which it includes (1-4, pp. 443, 444 «) are 
in the main a summary of the narrative parts of the Con/essio, the very words of 
which he reproduces again and again, and to which, in one instance, he expressly 
refers {c. i) as his authority for the parentage and abode of the Saint's father.' 
He adds, however, a few particulars, derived from some unnamed source or 
sources ; and, moreover, he here and there alters the statements which he borrows 
from the Con/essio, whether through misunderstanding or inadvertence. 

The following additions to the details of the Con/essio are to be noted, all contained in c. i 
(p. 443, tnfr.) : — (i) Patrick was by birth and race a Briton : (ii) His mother's name was Concess : 
(iii) His original name was Sochet : (iv) His paternal abode was near "our sea" [the Irish Sea], 
and its name (for which he alleges a consent of authorities, as the result of inquiry made) was 
"Venire"^: (v) His master was a "Gentile," and was harsh: (vi) The land to which he escaped 
from his captivity was Britain. With these are to be joined — (vii) His age was thirty years when 
he revisited his parents {c. 5) : and (viii) His purpose when he left Britain was to visit Rome {ib.).* 

In another respect this part of the Life deviates from the Confessio. It assumes {c. 3, p. 443 h, in/r.) 

' This observation is due to Dr. Bury {^Guardian for Nov. 20, igoi, p. 1615, col. 2). 
^ " Cualfarni diaconi ortus, filio (ut ipse ait) Potiti fresbyteri, qui fuit uico Bannauem Thabu- 
rinde" [sic^, pp. 443a, infr.) : cp. Confessio, p. 43 a, infr. [_s. i of White's edition). 
' Or Nentre = the Nemthor of other authorities. * Dr. Bury, ut sufr. 


a "second captivity'" {tit. 3, p. xviii, supr.), between his flight from Ireland and his visit to his parents. 
Moreover, some details of this first period are altered by Muirchu, and assigned to a later time. Thus,, 
the man Victoricus, who, according to the Confessio, was seen by him in a dream when he was re- 
visiting his parents in Britain, is in the Life an "angelic" person, who had appeared to him previously 
in Ireland {c. i , p. 443 b), as well as afterwards in Gaul {c. 7, p. 444 a) ; and the voices from the 
"silua Foclitae" that called him at the time of that dream, are likewise transferred to the period of 
his life in Gaul i^ih.'). 

But for the most part our author adheres to his authority closely, in relating 
how the Saint was captured at the age of sixteen, and carried to Ireland, where 
he spent six years of slavery and hardship, tending the flocks of his master ; how, by 
Divine grace, he was filled with the Spirit, and lived in devotion, and was guided 
to escape from bondage ; how he obtained a passage across the sea in the ship of 
some strange heathen men, and shared for many days their wanderings, their 
privations, and the supply vouchsafed for their relief; how, after an interval of a 
few years, he returned to his parents' abode ; and then, notwithstanding their 
desire to retain him, was finally led by supernatural intimations to devote himself 
to his life-work (c, 4, p. 444 a). Even in the numerical details'^ there is a corre- 
spondence, not indeed complete, yet sufficient to satisfy us that Muirchu wrote 
with the Confessio, or extracts from it, in his hands, or (possibly) in his memory. — 
His very omissions confirm the fact. In this part of this work, he nowhere names 
the man whose slave Patrick was, nor intimates in what part of Ireland he dwelt. 
This silence was not by reason of ignorance, for in later chapters (11 and 12, 
pp. \b, 5 «) he speaks of Miliuc and of the country of the Picts, of Slemish and 
Skerry ; it was merely due to the fact that the Confessio here gives no name, of 
person or of place — no indication of the quarter of " Hiberio" in which the 
scene of his bondage lay. It is not till he reaches the opening chapter (5) of 
the second period that Muirchu definitely shows signs of turning from the 
fragments of autobiography gathered from the Saint's own writing,' to employ 
other authorities, unspecified, and only conjecturally determinable. 

Probably Muirchu failed (like most historians of early date) to appreciate the supreme value of 
such a document as the primary authority for the history of its writer. Yet he has extracted from it 
nearly everything in the way of direct statement that was available for his narrative ; and considering 
how irregular and confused the Confessio is in form, and how difficult (sometimes to the point of 
unintelligibility) in style and diction, Muirchu is hardly to be blamed if he forsook it for more 
explicit if less authentic records. That he was diligent in his quest of information appears from a 
passing phrase (already referred to) in c. i. After citing Patrick's Confessio (as above) for his 
paternity and birthplace, he proceeds: " quem uicum constanter induhitanterque comperimus esse Ventre"; 

' This is based on a misconstruction of the words, of the Confessio, " Et iterum -post annos multos 
adhuc cafturam dedi" {s. 3 ofWhite's text [cj>. p. 46 a;, infr., where the text of ^ is defective]) ; by which 
St. Patrick merely means that his condition, under the men in whose ship he escaped, was a " second 

* Not only, as above, his age (sixteen) when captured, and his six years' bondage, but also the two 
hundred miles' flight to where the ship lay — the three days at sea — the twenty-eight days wandering — 
the foretold two months of the "second captivity" [cc. 1-3). 

^ Of the Efistte addressed to the subjects of Coroticus (which is not included in our MS.) he makes no 
use, though in c. 29, which deals with Coroticus (p. 449 «, infr.), he shows that he knew of its existence. 
Probably he had not seen it. 


showing that he had made inquiry, apparently in more than one quarter, and thus succeeded in 
identifying the place. It seems safe to infer that he used like care and diligence in verifying the 
other details with which he has supplemented those which he drew from the Confessio. 

In this chapter (5) he enters on the second stage of his narrative ; but in 
leaving the previous stage he introduces a connecting link between the two, the 
mention of the Saint's purpose (of which the Confessio says nothing) of visiting 
the Apostolic See. From Britain to Rome the road led through Gaul. 

In Gaul accordingly lies the scene of the second period {cc. 5-9) — an episode 
in the Saint's course not derived from the Confessio ; in which document, however, 
there is one sentence fairly to be taken as implying that he had sojourned in 
Gaul.^ According to Muirchu (c. 7, p. 444 «), this sojourn lasted for "thirty or, 
as some say, forty years" — in which statement we have a second instance of his 
recourse to more than one authority for his materials. The Saint, on his way 
through Gaul to cross the Alps to Italy, stops at Auxerre, to visit Germanus, 
Bishop of that city, and is induced to stay there as his disciple {c. 6, p. 444 a) ; 
apparently giving up, or at least deferring indefinitely, his proposed visit to 
Rome. Then follows the explanation of his next step — an explanation which 
connects this period with that of his early days of bondage in Ireland. In visions 
Victoricus revisits him, and proclaims that the time has come to enter on his 
evangelic mission ; the voices from the wood of Fochlath again are heard to invite 
his coming {c. 7, pp. 444.2, 3.2). He obeys, and " sets forth on the journey he 
had begun \_cceptum iter], to the work for which he had long since been prepared, 
even that of the Gospel" {c. 8). If this coeptum iter is the journey begun when he left 
Britain for Rome, we must understand Muirchu to mean that it is to Rome the 
Saint now directs his course, resuming his long-intermitted progress thither, and 
reverting to his original purpose of seeking in that city to obtain fuller teaching, 
and presumably sanction, for his evangelic enterprise. But, on the other hand, 
it is to be noted that Muirchu says nothing of any such revival of that purpose. 
And, moreover, in the tituli of cc. 5 and 8 (assuming them to come from his hand), 
he ignores any journey beyond Auxerre {" non exiuit ultra^^ tit. 5); and {tit. 8) 
writes " de reuersione eius de Galliis^'' implying that he conceives the coeptum iter to 
have been made (with the one deviation recorded) direct from Auxerre to the sea- 
board where he took ship for Britain.^ Under either interpretation, the Narrative 
makes two points clear: — (i) that he originally intended when he left Britain 
to visit Rome ; (2) that the intention was not carried out. Some time before 
Patrick's departure from Auxerre, Palladius had been consecrated and sent as 
missionary to Ireland by the then Pope, Celestine, " the forty-fifth from the 
Apostle Peter," but was unsuccessful, withdrew from the work, and, on his way 
back to Rome, died in Britain. Tidings of his death met Patrick at " Ebmoria,'' 

1 "Paratus irem . . . usque Gallias uisiiare fratres" [s. 43, White). These words occur in a passage 
not included in our MS. 

' So Dr. Bury, in a MS. mennorandum communicated to Editor. 


after he had entered on his journey,^ and caused him to change his plans : he 
turned aside to visit one Amatorex, a Gaulish Bishop of high rank and repute, 
and from him obtained ordination for himself to the Episcopate, and for two of 
his followers to the Priesthood {c. 9).^ He then resumed his route (of which our 
author gives no details), and reached Britain, thence to cross to Ireland {ib^. 

For this period, as has been already noted, no material has been yielded by the Confessio, and no 
authority earlier than Aedh is alleged. But inasmuch as two of those who were designated with him 
in Gaul for the mission, Auxilius and Iserninus, though not again mentioned by our author, appear 
in Tirechan's Memoirs and in the later compilations which are subjoined to them in our MS., as 
associated with him in his labours, and as connected with certain Churches,' it is natural to suppose 
that in the Churches claiming to trace back to these two men, traditions would be preserved of the 
sojourn of the Saint in Gaul, which Muirchu would gather and write down.* In confirmation of this 
hypothesis it is to be noted : — (i) that the Church which bore the name of Auxilius (p. 37 a) appears 
to have been Killishee, near Naas, within a short journey of the abode of Muirchu, near Wicklow ; 
(2) that Tirechan, in naming Iserninus (p. 30 3), connects him with KilcuUen, in the same neighbour- 
hood ; and moreover that the last of the documents appended to Tirechan (which profess to be records 
collected by the " Heirs'' of Patrick at Armagh) gives a long history of Iserninus, associating him through 
Patrick's convert Crimthann with the foundation of Sletty, the see of Aedh (pp. 35, 36a, infr.')? Thus 
Muirchu or Aedh, either or both of them, would be within easy reach of such memories as the clergy 
of Killishee and Kilcullen claimed to have inherited from the founders, in addition to those which 
may well be believed to have been treasured in the greater Church of Sletty. It will be shown 
farther on (Chap, vi.) that Aedh is probably the authority whence the Armagh records derived their 
narrative of the doings of Iserninus. 

Passing now to the third period, as related in the chapters (11— 13, pp. &,b, 5) 
of the third group, and deferring for the moment our examination oi c. 10, we enter 
on the first stage of the Saint's mission to Ireland. And here we become at once 
conscious of a change in the manner of the narrative. It has ceased to be vague 
and summary ; no long intervals occur in it ; decades of years are no longer dis- 
missed in a sentence ; it has become continuous and detailed ; persons and places 
are distinctly named. It relates how St, Patrick with his company first reached 
the Irish coast at a point in the district of FercuUen {^Wegiones Coolenorum" ) at the 
*' Ostium Dee" {riedir'SNic]dovi); but thence (as it seems, without landing there) turned 
his course northward, desiring to carry the Gospel first to the place of his former 
bondage under Miliuc, from whose service he had fled, and to repay to him the 
price of his freedom twofold — in money, and " by freeing him whose captive 
bondsman he had been, from the captivity of heathenism" [c. 11). In this voyage, 
they first touch at "the outer island still called by his name" (Inis Patrick, lying 

^ This place was unknown to Muirchu, as his marginal z intimates. If it could be identified, its situa- 
tion, north of Auxerre or otherwise, would prove whether Patrick was on his way to Ireland or to Rome when 
these tidings reached him. 

2 See Dr. Bury in English Historical Review for 1904, pp. 497 sqq. 

= For Auxilius, see Tirechan's list of Bishops, p. 18 b, infr. ; and also the brief entry (" Cell Auxili"), 
p. 3ya, line 20. For Iserninus, see Tirechan, p. 30 6 {" Eserninus"), as well as the document of p. 35, infr. 

^ Cp. the note (end of p. 16 b, infr.), " Haec Constans in Gallis inuenitP 

^ Killishee, or Killossy = Cell Usaili ( Vita Tripartita, p. 186), lies not thirty miles from the town of 
Wicklow, near to which latter was Kill Murchon, the Church of Muirchu (Colgan, a;p. Reeves, ut su;pr., 
p. xix, note).— Kilcullen, a few miles farther south, is the " Cellola Cuilinn" of p. 306, infr. : see V.T., ut 
su^pr. — Sletty, in Queen's Co., on the Carlow border, was the ecclesiastical centre of all the above-named 
Churches, readily accessible from any one of them. 

C 2 


off the Dublin coast, less than fifty miles north of Wicklow) ; thence, feeling 
their way along- the coasts of Meath {"Brega^') and Louth (*' Conalneos Jlnes'^) in 
order, they reach that of Down {''fines Ulathorum^'''^), enter Strangford Lough, 
passing up the western arm of it {"/return quod est Brene'' ^), and there land 
at the mouth of the Slaney' (J'ad ostium Slain'^). Here the Saint makes his 
first convert, in the person of Dichu, the local chief, in his abode at a place 
afterwards known as '' Horreum PatriciV {— "Patrick's Barn"; Sabhul, now 
Saul, near Downpatrick), whose swineherd first met the strangers on their 
landing. After a short sojourn with Dichu, the Saint resumes his purpose 
of visiting Miliuc. Leaving his ship where he had found harbour, he pro- 
ceeds by land to the "region of the Picts" {'' Cruidnenorum fines, ''^ afterwards 
called Dal Araide, the southern district of the present county of Antrim), and 
reaches the slopes of the mountain Slemish, which, though not mentioned in the 
earlier part of the narrative (c. i), is now assigned by name as the scene of his 
bondage, and of his vision (here more circumstantially described) of " the angel 
Victoricus." Here, standing on the southern [more accurately, the south-western] 
flank of Slemish {_"a latere dextero motitis Miss"), where he first came in view of 
the district where he had lived as a bondsman, he is stopped {c. 12, p. 5 a) by a 
terrible sight, the tragic frustration of his purpose by the desperate act of Miliuc, 
who in a panic destroys himself and his home and substance in a suicidal confla- 
gration. Astounded by this catastrophe, he remains two or three hours speechless 
on the spot. Then retracing his course, he returns to Dichu, " in Campum Inis^'' 
that is, to Magh Inis (the district south of Strangford Lough ; afterwards, and still, 
called Lecale), where he carries on his mission with success " for many days." 

But the approach of Easter suggests to him an opportunity for a movement 
of wider scope. He is inspired to aim a bold stroke at the very heart of Irish 
heathenism, in the " Campus Maximus" — the great central plain of Breg, where 
the stronghold of its priestly and royal supremacy stood (c. 13, p. 5 b\ 

Even in this brief summary (in which many points are passed over), we 
perceive distinct evidence that, for the history of this period, our author is using 
other and fuller sources of information than in the two foregoing groups of 
sections. The narrative has become ample in detail of places, persons, and cir- 
cumstances. It reverts to the facts of the first period, but relates them with more 
exactness — even with something of freshness — describing, not merely the acts of 
the Saint, but his motives and his feelings, his tears and prayers, his consternation, 

' The name Ulaid, at first denoting the people of the kingdom which was nearly coextensive with the 
present province of Ulster, came in later, but very early, times to be restricted to the south-east part, now the 
County of Down. And it is in this limited sense that Muirchu, alike in Book I. and Book II., speaks of 
" Ulathorum fines''' (i. cc. 11, 12) ; ";plebs Ulod," "contra Ultu'" (11. cc. 9, 14, pp. 15 b, i6a). Afterwards 
it recovered its original meaning, equivalent to the Ulster of modern usage. See Reeves, Eccles. Antiqq., 
pp. 352 sqq. 

^ This ancient name {" Fretum Brennese," Vita ll., «j5. Colgan, Trias Thaum., s. 29) long survived in 
that of the adjoining parish oi Ballybrene, now Ballintogher (Reeves, utsuj>r., p. 40). 

3 The mouth of the stream now locally called the Scadden (bounding the townland of Kilscadden), but 
known within recent memory as the Slaney, has been satisfactorily identified as this "ostium Slain" by the 
late Mr. J. W. Hanna, in a memoir on "The Landing-^lace of St. Patrick" (Downpatrick, 1858). 


his use of the sign of the Cross ; and, for the first time becoming dramatic, 
puts into his mouth a prophetic soliloquy {ib.\ The narrg,tor knows — what he 
did not find in the Con/essio, and therefore did not state in his earlier chapters — 
that the place of Patrick's captivity was in north-eastern Ireland, that it was an 
inland place (for he makes his way to it from Saul by land), that it lay by 
Slemish, that Miliuc was his master's name. The topography is absolutely 
accurate; in the voyage from Wicklow to Strangford Lough, the regions that 
his vessel passed are correctly named and in proper order ; not only the place 
where he first reached the Irish shore, but the islet at which he. touched, the 
inlet where he finally put in, the petty stream at whose mouth he landed, all are 
identifiable; and finally, in the last chapter (13) of this group, he gives the first 
express note of time, to be found in the record of the journey, by noting that 
Easter was at hand. 

Two touches our author adds, which show minute local knowledge, whether 
acquired on the spot by himself or from an informant who was acquainted with 
it — (i) that a mark, believed to be a footprint left {" presso uestigio^^) by the 
angelic visitant, was discernible on the rocky summit of "a second mount" 
(unnamed here), close to Slemish {c. 11); (2) that a cross "still" (that is, in 
the writer's time) stood to signalize the spot whence the Saint viewed the fire 
in which Miliuc perished by his own act {c. 12). 

The "second mount" is named by Muirchu at the close of Book 11. (p. ibb, in/r.) " Sctrit" 
(now Skerry) ; also by Tirechan (p. 17 3), ^^Scirle." The "footprint" is still shown — an angular mark 
formed by the convergence of two natural fissures in the basaltic rock of which the hill is composed, 
"a depression having a faint resemblance to the print of a shoe." The hill is 597 feet in height, 
steep, and on one side precipitous. It may well be, as has been conjectured, the site of Miliuc's 
stronghold ; but its summit is now occupied by the ancient ruin of a small church, near the 
N.-E. angle of which is the " footprint." It lies N.-W. of Slemish, on the opposite side of the valley 
of the Braid. The " cross " has disappeared, but has left its name to the townland of Cross, the highest 
ridge (870 feet) of the western slopes of Slemish, whence a wide view is to be had, including Skerry 
(five miles to the north) and the intervening valley, as well as Slemish, whose summit (1437 feet) 
dominates the whole region and is distant from Skerry three miles; from Cross, four.' 

Muirchu's two accounts of St. Patrick's vision (Book i., c. 11; 11., c. 13 — pp. sa; 16^), neither 
of which is distinctly expressed, taken together appear to describe the angel as mounting first from 
Skerry across the valley to Slemish, leaving his footprint on the former, and then from the latter 
upward. "/?« quo monte" (in I. 11, p. 5 a, line 14) is to be read with '^ ascendisse," not with "uidit." 

It is to be added (in anticipation of later passages of the Life) that wherever 
our author recurs to the facts which belong to North-east Ireland, the same 
characteristic precision of detail reappears in his treatment of them. 

This is seen in the latter division of Book i., which I have described as its 
Appendix [cc. 23 et sqq.). Of the four chapters which it comprises, one relates to 
Armagh {c. 24) and three to Down (23, 25, 26). All four, as will appear, 

' It is now called by the people "St. Patrick's Footmark." — Historical Account of the Diocese of 
Down and Connor, by the Very Rev. James O'Laverty, p.p., vol. iii., p. 443. In this valuable work will be 
found also (vol. i., pp. 226 sqq.) the substance of Mr. Hanna's memoir, quoted above. See also an interesting 
paper by the Very Rev. Abraham Dawson, Dean of Dromore, in Ulster journal of Archceology, vol. iii,, 
part 2 (Jan. 1897), p. 113. 


abound in particulars, personal and topographical, and in autoptic touches. 
The writer in c. 23 (p. 10 b) not only speaks of MacCuil by name as a man of Ulaid, 
afterwards Bishop of Man, but adds his patronymic (" Maccu Greccae") and place 
of abode {Aetidrum or Nendrum, now Mahee Island),^ relates circumstantially the 
strange story of his exile to the Isle of Man (which lies in sight of the opening of 
Strangford Lough), and names also the two Bishops, " Conindri et Rumili" whom 
he found there, and whose successor he finally became. In c. 25 (p. 12 a) we read 
of a rath being built "at the seaside by the saltmarsh, not far distant from the 
Collum Bonis'' Though this Latinized name has not been satisfactorily identified 
with that of any known place, it certainly belongs to an estuary or an inlet of the 
sea in the region of the first landing, as appears in Book 11. where it recurs 
('* Fretum quod Collum Bonis nocatnr,'' p. i6«). Again, va. c. 26 (p. 13 J), a "salt- 
marsh" reappears ; and the name of the district, ''Campus Inis" (= Magh Inis), 
is expressly given (as before in cc. 12, 13). 

It is to be noted that these two chapters profess to report Patrick's words ; 
and they have in common the earliest mention of the (unexplained) exclamation 
" mndebrod'" [" -broth'''] ascribed to him by tradition. 

The Collum Bouts has by some been identified with the inner Bay of Dundrum, somewhat south- 
west of Strangford Lough^; but the narrative of Book 11., c. 13, seems to imply a spot nearer to Saul. 
No one who knows this part of Down, and especially the estuary now called the Quoyle, into which 
the Slaney runs, can fail to note the prevailing saltmarshes which are the characteristic features of the 
shores of the district which includes Saul and Downpatrick — the places of St. Patrick's landing and of 
his burial ; and to conclude that the writer had, or was informed by one who had, accurate local 
knowledge enabling him thus to supply not only details of his narrative, but local colour for its scene.' 

In the chapter (24) relating to the foundation of Armagh (p. 12 b), the same 
character is no less marked. The scene is no longer in Down, but in Airthir 
(" in regionibus Orientalium") ; Daire is named, and his abode on the height 
called "Dorsum Salicis" (Druimm Sailech). The "lower" site which the Chief 
first offers to give the Saint, as well as the "higher" site which, after first 
refusing, he finally consents to give also — for the Armagh which was known 
(the " ciuitas quae nunc Ardd Machae nominatur," p. 13 a) in our author's time — 
are particularly designated by him ; and each is identified with the place of a 
Church which in that time was still resorted to — the " Church of the Relics" ['' ubi 
nunc est Fertae Martyrum," p. 12b), and the " Northern . Church" {" ubi nunc 
altare est sinistralis ecclesiae" p. 13 b\ To the former of these is attached the 
incident of Daire's horse ; to the latter, that of the hind and her fawn, whose 
lair marked the site of Its altar. 

Here too, as in the Antrim narrative {cc. 11, 12), indications appear of local 
customs of reverence preserving the memory of the story and of its scenes, — in 
the virtue ascribed "even to the present day" to the spot whither the fawn was 

1 <i 

" Sedens hmDruim Moccu Echach." See Reeves, E.A., pp. 187 sqg. It is an island in the 
northern part of Strangford Lough. 

■■' So Reeves, E.A., pp. 235, 236. Others suggest Drutnbo ; but this place being inland will not suit. 
3 Zimmer {Celtic Church, p. 12) expresses a contrary opinion on this point. 


followed by its dam (p. 13 <5). And here again the tradition of Armagh, like that 
of Down, preserves a word uttered by the Saint, — his reiterated " Grazacham^'' 
(= * * gratias agam[us] " ) . ^ 

Further on, in Book 11., we shall meet with the like characteristics in the supplementary legends 
there collected, — such of them as relate to the same regions, Down, Antrim, and Armagh, — especially 
in the chapters which add to the incidents belonging to Antrim, and record those which attended 
the burial in Down. Of these, more will be said in the proper place. 

The narrative of the fourth and last period of the Lt/e {cc, 10, 14-22), as of 
the third, abounds in detail ; but it is copious rather than exact, and impressed 
with a new character which now for the first time shows itself, — the thaumaturgic. 
Not that the supernatural is absent from the earlier periods, — in them, as in the 
Con/essio, dreams and visions and voices bear their part in shaping the Saint's 
course, and providential gifts are granted to his prayers or even to his unspoken 
wants ; — but that in them he is nowhere seen set forth as wielding miraculous 
powers for the confirmation of his mission, or for his relief in need or peril. Yet 
there is no breach of continuity in the story ; this fourth division is carefully 
linked on by our author to the third. This is effected (i) by the close connexion 
between cc. 13 and 14 (pp. ^b, 6 a), the last of the third period and the first of 
the fourth ; of which the former represents Patrick as taking counsel while yet in 
Down about a daring onward step ; and the latter relates how he carried out the 
design then formed, by his move, southward and then westward, towards Tara.^ 
Then farther, (2) by what seems an artifice of afterthought, the author (as above 
noted, p. xvi) has transferred the chapter which now is c. 10, from the place which 
it would naturally occupy (and apparently did at first occupy) here, after <r. 14, 
in the narrative of the fourth period, — back to the third period, to stand before 
Patrick's landing in Down — before even his first approach to the Irish coast.' 

Here, then, in the opening of the fourth period, we see the Saint {c. 14) 
departing from Down by ship as he had arrived, but retracing in a southward 
direction his former course along the coast to reach Brega, which {c. 11) he had 
previously passed by — the Campus Maximus of c. 13. In this opening the 
topographical exactness is maintained ; the missionary company quit Dichu and 
Magh Inis, and land at " Ostium Colpdi" (the mouth of the Boyne). Leaving the 
ship there, they proceed on foot to the Plain, and there encamp at nightfall^ on a 
spot known as "Ferta uirorum Feec'^ [Ferta /er Feic, afterwards Slane). There, 
according to the Saint's purpose, they prepare to raise the standard of Christ 
by celebrating the Easter Eucharist. 

We now turn back to the displaced c. 10 for its account of those at whom this 

1 The frequent recurrence of " Gratias ago " in the Confessio is notable, as illustrative of this tradition. 
See Confessio, ss. 19, 23, 30, 34 (to), 42, 46 (White's edition). 

* £leuata igitur naui ad Tnare (c. 14, p. 6 V). 

' This observation is due to Dr. Bury {Guardian, Nov. 20, 1901, p. 1615), who points out that, in c. 10 
the "in praedictis regionibus," in the first sentence, and the closing " Redeamus ad ^ro^ositum" at the 
end, betray that the author originally wrote it to stand after c. 14, in which those "regiones" are defined • 
and then transferred it, for the sake of literary effect, to the place which it now holds. 

* From their probable landing-place near Drogheda, the distance to Slane is about ten miles. 


solemn demonstration was aimed. In the same plain stood '' Temoria" (Tara), 
the "Capital of the Scoti" where Laeghaire reigned as ''imperator" (" High King" 
= Ardrigk), of the great house of the Hy-Neill, sons of that Niall from whom 
so many reigning princes in Ireland claimed descent. Here the magicians and 
soothsayers who were about him — of whom two especially are named, "Lothroch (or 
Lochru)" and '' Lucetmael {or Ronaiy'—hd,6. already, and "chiefly for two or three 
years past," with increasing urgency, warned him that a new order of things, 
from the lands over sea, was about to come, "with strange and subversive 
doctrine," to be "proclaimed by a few, but accepted by the many," and destined 
to prevail over the existing rule and worship, and "to reign for ever" (p. 4 a). To 
this warning (which tradition seems to have preserved in a metrical form, plainly 
traceable in our author's reproduction of it) they added a definite prediction, 
embodied in verse, descriptive of the aspect and usages of the foreseen 
stranger who was to bring in this great change, — the tonsure, the pastoral staff, 
the chasuble ; the chants, the Holy Table, the responsive Amen. This verse, in 
its mystic brevity, rendered into Latin so far as its obscurity will permit,^ Muirchu 
cites in full. 

Resuming now the narrative in its existing order, at t. 15 (p. 6«j, we there 
learn how the conflict thus foretold, between the old order and the new, is 
brought by the Saint's bold advance to a speedy issue. He and his followers, in 
their camp near Slane, had lighted a fire on Easter Even, to be at once a symbol 
and a challenge. Now, as it fell out, this day coincided with the time when 
a great yearly solemnity was held at Tara by the King, his Chiefs, and his 
Magicians, at which, by usage, a fire was lighted in the Palace, with proclamation 
made that, until it should be seen, none else should light a fire under pain of death. 
It was therefore with angry amazement that the assemblage at Tara saw the flame 
kindled at Slane — which is easily within view from Tara. The magicians, when 
consulted by the King, warn him that unless this rebel fire be at once extin- 
guished, it and he who lighted it will overcome and overthrow his kingdom and the 
customs of the nation. By their advice Laeghaire and his retinue proceed at once 
to confront the intruder (c. 16, p. 7 a), and sumrrion him into the royal presence. A 
controversy ensues between the Saint and the magicians, which is cut short by his 
anathema inflicting a sudden and terrible death on Lochru, their foremost cham- 
pion against the Faith {c. 17, p. 7 <$), followed by darkness and earthquake. The 
chiefs and magicians fly ; the terrified and deserted King, at the Queen's humble 
intercession, is suffered to retire to Tara {cc. 17, 18, ib., and 8 a). There, the next 
day, being Easter Day, Patrick visits him {c. 19, p. 8 3). A contest of miracle 
ensues between him and the chief magician Lucetmael, ending in a trial by fire, 
in which the latter perishes, as Lochru had perished the night before [c. 20, 
pp. 9, \oa). On this the King gives way, and, by the advice of his councillors, 
submits to a reluctant conversion {c. 21, p. 10 <5). 

1 "Pro linguae idiomo non tarn mamfesta." The original Irish is to be found in the Scholia on the 
Hymn of Fiacc {Liber Hymn., t. I., p. 100 ; t. 11., p. 181) : also in V. 1., p. 34. 


With this signal triumph the direct narrative closes ; and the rest of the 
Saint's work is summed up in a single sentence which tells {c. 22) how he went 
forth from Tara to spread the Gospel through all the land. 

It has been already pointed out that the narrative of this period is 
distinguished from all that precedes by the thaumaturgic colouring which 
pervades it, reaching its highest point in c. 20, which is a very phantasmagoria of 
miracle. It is to be added that the writer's style changes in correspondence with 
the change in its matter ; it departs from the plain directness with which the 
Down and Antrim episodes are told ; it becomes artificial and laboured. This 
character appears especially in the attempt, discernible throughout it, to shape 
the incidents after Scriptural models. That its conclusion {c. 22) is borrowed, 
as already noted, almost verbatim from that of the Gospel of St. Mark, is con- 
sistent with its introduction to the encounter at Tara {c. 16), which is expressly 
modelled on that of the action of Herod as described in the beginning of the 
Gospel of St. Matthew (ii. 3). And in like manner (not to dwell on other reminis- 
cences of Old and New Testaments) the Book of Daniel is pointedly cited in c. 15, 
and its echoes are heard everywhere in the story of Patrick's conflict and victory.^ 

In this superabundance of the marvellous, the narrative loses, as might be 
expected, much of the definiteness of outline and the exactness of topographical 
detail which belong to its preceding period. Indeed there is little need for 
topography in the record, which covers a time of but two (or possibly three) days, 
and a land journey of perhaps twenty miles ; — for Patrick's landing was effected, 
as we have seen, at a point on the Boyne estuary near Drogheda, early on Easter 
Even ; and the hill of Slane, some ten miles distant, was reached on foot before 
nightfall of the same day. At Tara (whither he proceeded the next day), which 
lies some ten miles to the south, the fire then and there lighted would be seen ; and 
all the incidents of cc. 16-20 are crowded into that night and the next day (being 
Easter Day). Thus, as regards order of time and place, the story is consistent,^ 
whatever may be thought of the credibility of the wonders it relates, or even of 
the possibility of their occurrence within less than forty-eight hours, as the narra- 
tive seems to require. The personages who are conspicuous in the story — the 
King, and his two chief magicians — and the speeches attributed to them, are 
conventional, and do nothing to impart to it any touch of living reality. On the 
whole, the impression left by it on the reader's mind is, that Muirchu's materials 
for this period were not traditions of authentically historical value such as he 
gathered in Down and in Antrim for the period before it, but ecclesiastical 
legends, embodied mostly in verse such as lies scarcely under the surface of c. 10. 

Two incidents of the narrative, however, emerge from their mythical sur- 
roundings, which commend themselves as trustworthy personal records, — the 

^"Ut quondam a^i' Nabcodonossor" (p. 6a); " ut olltm 'Exodis" [ya); and pp. b-io, passim. 
2 The only other place mentioned, the " Mons Mondmrn" (p. 8«), does not seem to have been identified 
with certainty. 



reverence done to the Saint by ''Era,'" son oi'^Deg" at Slane, in the first conference 
{c. 17, p. 7 b), and the like act of '' Dubihoch Maccu LugiV at Tara the next day 
{c. 19, p. 8i5). Of these two personages, alike memorable by reason of the religious 
instinct which bowed them before the messenger of the Gospel at first sight, and 
opened their hearts to his preaching, our author connects the former with the 
Church at Slane, where "his remains are still honoured"; the latter he describes 
as "an excellent poet," and associates as present with him his young disciple, 
also a poet, ''Feec'' (Fiacc), afterwards first Bishop of Sletty, in which Church his 
name and remains were, in Muirchu's day, held in honour and admiration.^ 
In this incidental note we may discern a plain intimation of one of the sources 
whence our author drew his narrative of Tara. Aedh, his master, at whose 
dictation he wrote this Book, was Bishop of Sletty, the natural inheritor of the 
traditions handed down from his first predecessor ; and such traditions, claiming 
such authority, of an eye-witness and a disciple of Patrick himself, consecrated 
by him for that Church, would assuredly be prominent among the materials 
received from him by Muirchu. This consideration gives point to what is other- 
wise unmeaning — the occurrence in the narrative of the mention of Fiacc's 
presence at Tara when Patrick came, though he is not introduced as having any 
the least part in what was then and there done or said. And it accounts, too, for 
the description of him, and of Dubhthach, his preceptor, as "poets"; for it suggests 
that their gift of verse may have been employed in recording the facts which 
they witnessed, in metrical form, — in verses such as we have already detected as 
underlying the preliminary account (p. 4 a) of Laeghaire and his surroundings. 
That Sletty had such traditions, and had them in poetic shape, we know. The 
so-called Hymn of Fiacc, which has come down to us, cannot indeed (as its 
internal evidence shows) be due to Fiacc, or to any contemporary of St. Patrick ; 
nor perhaps has it reached us in its original form, for it has been apparently 
interpolated, possibly from Muirchu's Life^ more probably from the tradi- 
tional materials which Muirchu worked on. But it may be accepted as in the 
main a genuine relic of Sletty tradition ; and it embodies, and is professedly 
based on, ''stories'''' and "writings''''^ of early date, some of which must have 
been independent of Muirchu, inasmuch as it includes a few points which are 
not to be found in his work. A comparison between the two documents — the 
Hymn and Muirchu's Book i. — leads to the conclusion that, while each contains 
some matter unused by the author of the other, there is a large element common 
to both. To this common matter belongs the tradition of Patrick's coming into 
contact with Laeghaire; for the Hymn records (lines 20, 21) both the fact and the 
prediction of it by the magicians. But of the accompanying prodigies it says 

' "Cuius nunc reliquiae adorantur in Slane" (p. ^b); "Mirabilis e^isco^us . . . cuius reliquiae 
adorantur hiSleibti" (p. 8 3), See farther, for Fiacc, the later record, p. 35 {infr.); also Preface to 
Fiacc's Hymn {L.H., t. i., p. 96 ; 11., p. 31). 

' So Dr. Atkinson, L.H., t. II., p. xliv ; Prof. Loofs, on the contrary, holds that Muirchu is indebted 
to the Hymn {Antiq. Brit. Scot. Secies. Mores., p. 44). 

^ Hymn, lines i, 12 {L.H., 1., p. 97; 11., p. 32). 


not a word ; nor is there any mention of them in its Preface, though, in naming 
Fiacc as author of the Hymn, it describes him as disciple of Dubhthach, "who 
rose up before Patrick at Tara.'" On the whole, it is a probable inference from 
the facts, that Muirchu received from Aedh a tradition, presumably recorded in 
verse claiming to trace back to Fiacc, of the triumph of Patrick and his Gospel 
at Tara ; but that he has given it to us with large accretions of miraculous 
accessories, derived from other and less authentic sources. 

These accretions, and with them other matter of more value, he may probably 
have gathered in the Churches of Meath. Accordingly, we find some of the 
Tara traditions repeated in the first Book of Tirechan [infr., p. 19), who, as 
Dr. Bury has pointed out,'' has reproduced them in a simpler and fresher form. 
He, no doubt, received them from his master, Ultan (of Ardbraccan in Meath). 
The matter common to him and Muirchu includes (of the Meath period) the 
lighting of the fire at Slane, and the defeat and doom of the wizards ; also the 
homage of Ercc, — but not that of Dubhthach, which, as above noted, belongs 
rather to the tradition of Sletty, 

It may here be noted that the Sletty tradition, as it appears in the Hymn, 
extends back beyond the fourth period of the Life, to the second — that of the 
Saint's life in Gaul. It therefore may be with much probability regarded (as 
above suggested, p. xxiii) as the source (or at least a source) whence Muirchu 
drew his knowledge of that episode in the history. 

In his critical analysis of Place's Hymn (Z. H., t. 11. pp. xl-xlix), Professor Atkinson, applying 
the tests of metre, philology, and internal coherence, has rejected nineteen out of its thirty-four 
stanzas, as inserted by a later hand. Accepting the remaining fifteen (not indeed as the work of 
Fiacc, but) as an ancient hymn attributed to him at Sletty, we find in them {inter alia) the following 
points which Muirchu has passed over: — (i) The name Cothraige? with the (false) etymology 
suggested; (2) Patrick's sojourn "in the isles of the Tyrrhene Sea"; (3) His study of "the Canon" 
(the New Testament). On the other hand, the Hymn, even in its interpolated form, while evidently 
purporting to give a full though concise outline of the Saint's course, exhibits coincidences with 
Muirchu only as regards the first, second, and (more sparingly) the fourth of the periods into which 
Book I. of the Life divides itself. Of the third, the important opening of his mission in Down, and 
his frustrated visit to the place of his captivity in Dal Araide, it shows no knowledge, except what 
may be implied in its bare mention of the "Great Church" at " Dunleth glasse" (Downpatrick), 
which place is named by Muirchu only in Book 11. (p. 16 a, in/r.), and there only as the burial-place of 
the Saint, not as associated with the earliest stage of his mission.* Though it names Miliuc as the 
master of Patrick, and Victor as his angel-visitant who left his footprint on the rock as an abiding 
memorial of his guardianship, it does so only in connexion with the first period, that of his bondage. 
Of the fifteen stanzas, seven (i-vi, viii) are given to the first and second periods; and but one (xi) to 
the fourth : six (xiii, xviii, xxiii, xxv, xxviii, xxxii, after which follows xxxiv as conclusion) run 
parallel with the narrative of Muirchu's Book 11., and therefore deal chiefly with the incidents 
attendant on his death and burial. Of these, there is more to be said in the next Chapter. 

^L.H., I., p. 96; II., p. 31. ^ E.H.R., April, 1902, pp. 250, 251. 

3 That this name Cothraige is a Gaelicized form of Patrice was first pointed out by Todd [Proc. R.I.A., 
vol. vi., p. 294, 1856), though afterwards, in deference to adverse dicta, he withdrew his opinion {St. Patrick, 
p. 363, n. 2). The identification has since been put forward by Professor Rhys, and more recently by 
Professor Thurneysen, and is now generally admitted. 

^ Hymn, line 44 ^stanza 22) ; L.H,, ut su;pr. This stanza is one of those noted by Dr. Atkinson as 

D 2 


To sum up the results, then, of our survey of the Life for so far. We have 
found it to be an ordered and continuous narrative, falling naturally into four 
groups of capita ; derived evidently from several distinct authorities, yet woven 
with some skill into unity of plan ; — the chapters of the first and second groups 
being a brief and summary introduction to the history of the mission of 
St. Patrick, the third and fourth relating the mission with much detail, from its 
opening to its triumph. The first treats of the early days of the Saint, and is 
based on his Confession : the second, of his years of preparation in Gaul, as 
known probably through the traditions of Churches founded by those who came 
with him from that country as fellow-workers, Sletty being presumably the chief 
home of such traditions. In the third, which is distinguished by the fullness and 
accuracy of its topography, our author draws on the traditions of the Churches 
of Downpatrick and of Saul, and on the local knowledge acquired, together with 
these traditions, by himself or by his informant — no doubt, in a pious visit to the 
scenes which (as his language, cc. ii, 12, suggests — see p. xxv, supr.) had, in his 
time {circ. 700), already become a resort of pilgrims. For the fourth, as has been 
shown, Muirchu himself, by his mention of Fiacc and Dubthach, points to Sletty 
as his source, though for the preternatural accessories of his narrative at this 
stage we discern no indication of the authorities on which he relied. It is to be 
added that, as we are thus referred to Sletty for the second and fourth periods 
of the preceding narrative, we are farther led to detect in these the guiding 
hand of Aedh, Bishop of Sletty : while the third, in which the Saint's course is 
traced from Wicklow to Saul, and thence to the cross beside Slemish and the 
angel's footprint on Skerry, may be presumed to embody the result of personal 
observations made by Muirchu himself, — in a pilgrimage starting from Wicklow, 
which was near his home, to those hallowed scenes.^ The traditions of Down and 
Antrim could, no doubt, give him their local details; but they could not have 
named the point where Patrick first touched the Irish seaboard, nor the shores he 
passed in his coasting voyage thence northward. 

That Muirchu actually made such a pilgrimage may reasonably be inferred, 
not only from the coincidence between the point of departure and the route of 
Patrick, as laid down in this narrative^ with the route which our author would 
naturally take in journeying from his home to the places described — not only from 
the autoptic touches, and the special mention of Saul, and of the rock with the 
footprint and of the commemorative cross, — but from a brief sentence at the close 
of Book II. {c. 13, p. 16 (5, and p. 445^), where he recurs to the angel's visit, and 
betrays the feelings of the pious pilgrim who has himself knelt at the sacred spot, 
in the digressive concluding words : " That place is a place of prayer, and there 
the prayers of the faithful obtain the happiest fruit." ^ 

' If the tradition is to be accepted which assigns Tara as the meeting -place of the " Synod of Adamnan," 
at which both Aedh and Muirchu were present, we have in their visit to that place an explanatioa of the 
accurate topography which, as above noted, marks the fourth division as well as the third. 

* " lUe locus orandi locus." The latter two words are wanting from our MS. (an omission due to the 
repeated " locus") ; but are supplied from B. See next note. 


The continuous history closes (as has been already noted) with a short 
sentence {c. 22), summing up the wide successes in spreading the Gospel which 
ensued on the Saint's triumph at Tara, and intimating that miracles attended 
and furthered his apostolic labours. The remaining seven capita (23 to end of 
Book I.) connect themselves with what precedes, as being a record of some 
signal examples of those miracles, forming what has been described above as the 
Appendix to the Narrative proper. At this point, accordingly, the ms. B ends 
the First Book, treating the Appendix as Second Book — a natural arrangement, 
but due, no doubt, not to the author, but to an editor.' The author has still 
unused materials to dispose of, mainly in the shape of miraculous incidents. 
Such materials, in relating the Tara period, he has had no difficulty in embody- 
ing with his history, in which they naturally find place. But others of like 
character, including some which belong to the Ulaid period, refuse to lend 
themselves to like treatment, — or his constructive skill was not equal to the task 
of working them in. Thus the story of MacCuil of Magh Inis {c. 23), and the 
two which have their scene in the salt-marshes of Strangford Lough {cc. 25, 26), 
though their scene is in Down, lie outside the lines of his plan ; and he therefore 
falls back on the arrangement to which other and more skilful historians have 
had recourse in like cases,^ by subjoining them, without note of time or order, as 
a supplement to the regular biography. 

Of the chapters (23, 25, 26) which are drawn from the traditions of Down, 
something has been already said (pp. xxv, xxvi, supr,) to show that they are 
written by one who knew the scenes of his stories.' Here, it is to be remarked 
further that, though Down had its marvellous legends as well as Tara, our author, 
in dealing with Down, keeps history and legend apart, instead of blending them 
inseparably, as in his Tara narrative. In this connexion it is to be noted that 
the Down legends, like those of Tara, sometimes took metrical form ; of which 
an instance shows itself under its Latin veil, in the opening of the MacCuil story 
{c. 23); whereas in the direct Narrative, where it relates the visit to Down, none 
such can be discovered. 

Thus the Appendix, in these three chapters (23, 25, 26), attaches itself to the 
Narrative of the third period. But a fourth chapter, which is inserted between 
two of them (the Daire legend of c. 24, p. 12 b, infr.), is exceptional, as recording 
the origin of the Church which, though acclaimed by universal consent as chief 
among Patrick's Churches, and expressly signalized as such by our author in 
Book II., is nowhere named in the Narrative of Book i., nor is any reference to 
its existence to be detected, either in the Narrative or in the Appendix (save in 

' So Dr. Bury {Hermathena, t. xiii., No. xxviii (1902), p. 178). Of Book 11. of our MS., B exhibits only 
the last chapter, placing- it after c. 12, at the close of the Ulster period of Book I. 

2 As {e.g>) Severus Sulpicius, in his Life of St. Martin, which, no doubt, was known to Muirchu, being 
the most popular religious biography of his time. That it maintained its vogue in a later age, our MS. 

^ A small exception is to be noted in c. 23. There is no " montosus asfer altusque locus'" at or near 
Mahee Island, the " Druim moccu-Bchach" of Mac Cuil. Muirchu cannot have visited it. 


this chapter and indirectly in c. 28, the legend of Benignus, his successor in 
that See, p. 451, infr.) — the Church of Armagh. Here, too, as has been already 
pointed out (p. xxvi), we find evidence that the author, or his informant, had 
visited the place, and could locate accurately the incidents related. If we are 
right in believing that our author, or his informant, had made the pilgrimage to 
Down, we may fairly suppose that he would extend his journey' to the Primatial 
See, the specially-favoured Church of the Saint. However this may be, it is 
certain that Aedh visited Armagh, and there submitted himself and his Church to 
the Heir of St. Patrick.^ Through him, therefore, if not by personal observa- 
tion and inquiry, Muirchu had means of obtaining this "legend,"' and its 
accompanying details of place and circumstance. 

Besides these four chapters, the Table of Capita (p. 39) gives the titles of three 
others {cc. 21, 28, 29}, making seven in all. These three are not found in our 
MS., and can never have been contained in it. They are, however, extant in the 
MS. B, where they appear in the order 27, 29, 28 (see for them pp. 448, 449, in/r.). 
Unlike the other four, these contain no notes of place. They are further dis- 
tinguished from the former in having each of them a brief introduction, in the 
first person {^* enarrare conabor" c. 27; " brevi retexam relatu,^'' 28; *'■ non transibo 
silentio,^^ 29). Two of them, moreover, relate to the Saint's dealings with persons 
not belonging to Ireland — ^^Moneisen,^' the Saxon princess* (27), and '^Coirthech^^ 
the Briton, King of "Air' (29).' The remaining one (28), however, recording 
how he designated Benignus as his successor in his favoured Church, connects 
itself by probable inference with the Church of Armagh.'' 

It has been shown, with much ingenuity, by Dr. Bury,' that the absence of these three sections 
from our MS., and the abnormal position in a subsequent part of it of the Preface and Table (the Table 
exhibiting the titles of the omitted capita^, may be accounted for by the hypothesis that Ferdomnach's 
exemplar was a copy which had lost the outer diploma of its first quire — of which the first leaf 
contained the Preface and Table, and the last leaf the three missing capita \ — and that he afterwards 
subjoined the Preface and Table from a different exemplar, but did not observe that this latter exemplar 
supplied also a portion of text which was not in the former one (viz., cc. 11, 28, 29), nor that the 
recovered Table exhibited three titles to which his text had nothing corresponding. — But, on the other 
hand, it may be, either, that these three capita are not part of the work of Muirchu as known to 
Ferdomnach, as is suggested by the difference in structure (above noted) between them and the pre- 
ceding capita — or, that Ferdomnach deliberately omitted them, as relating incidents too remote from 
the course of the main narrative. Dr. Bury has proved satisfactorily that the scribe has supplied the 
Preface and Table by recourse to a second exemplar rather than by recovery of the missing first leaf of 
his first one ; and also, that one leaf would probably sufl5ce to contain the text of the three omitted 

' From Downpatrick to Armagh the distance is less than fifty miles. 

^ See p. 36 a, infr. 

3 " Fabula" (title to c. 25 ; see p. 39 5, infr.). 

* If, however, Moneisen is to be identified with the "daughter of the King of Britain" (of F". 7., p. 232), 
this legend belongs to Armagh (Reeves, Anc. Chh. of Armagh, p. 12). 

» The Coroticus of Patrick's extant Epistle. No doubt " Ail" = Ail Cluid (Dumbarton). 

« This section has a point of contact with Fiacc's Hymn (stanza xiv — which, however, is reckoned 
by Dr. Atkinson among the interpolations into its text). Benignus, who is here mentioned, is said by 
Tirechan (p. i8a) to have belonged to " Ostium Ailbine" — i.e. Gormanstown in Meath. 

' Herm-athena, t. XII., no. xxviii., pp. 173 sqq. 


capita. But the improbability remains, that it should have contained them only, and them complete. 
When a leaf is lost from the middle of a book, the chances are very great that the loss will be shown 
by a break in the text at the place where the loss occurred. No such break can be traced in the text 
of Muirchu as exhibited in our MS. 

On examining pp. 448^-451 a of the text of B, it will be seen that, as has 
been already stated, after the Narrative proper (which is treated as Book i., and 
its close marked by the words '^ Finitur primus Liber), the Appendix follows as 
Book II. (headed "■' Incipit secundus'^), and gives, with one exception, all the capita 
set forth in the tituli of our MS. (p. 39 b), but differently arranged. First it places 
the three which our text omits (but changes their order, so that the Coirthech 
incident stands second of them, instead of third, as in the tituli). Then it adds 
three of the capita of our text, namely — first, the MacCuil incident (our c. 23); 
next, the judgment on Sunday labour (25) ; and, finally, part of the Daire legend 
(24) ; — but omits the last of them (the salt-marsh miracle, c. 26). Here B breaks 
off abruptly, just before the healing of Daire, leaving out the main points which 
connect c. 24 with the origin of the Church of Armagh — and without a break 
proceeds with the ^'Prologue to the Passion of St. Barnabas.^'' Of the Book 11. of 
our MS. it has no trace — except that, as above noted, the closing chapter of it 
appears in B, directly after <;. 1 2 of Book i. 

Thus it is clear that B is derived from a ms. entirely independent of A, which exhibited no small 
portion of text which A never contained. Moreover, in the text which is common to both, B often 
varies from A, sometimes (though not often) for the better. But it is to be added that the B text 
shows signs (some of which have been noted above) of editorial rearrangement: — as (i) in inserting 
the fragment from the end of our Book 11. in the place to which it naturally belongs (after c. 12) in 
Book I. ; (2) in distinguishing the Appendix of miracles from the continuous Narrative, and treating 
it as a second Book ; (3) in prefixing to this Second Book a formal introductory paragraph {" Itaque 
uolente Domino Pairicii ut ita dicam iotius Hibernice episcopi dociorisque egregii de uirtutihus pauca pluribus 
enarrare conabor") ; (4) in rearranging its capita, apparently according to some idea of their order of 
importance, so that the conversion of a king's daughter — ^the judgment on a persecuting king — the 
designation of a future Primate — stand before the incidents of less historic dignity which A records, — 
the Daire episode being, as we have seen, so curtailed as to deprive it of its historic bearing. 

Farther, it is noteworthy that, as pointed out above (p. xxxiv), these three capita, which B thus 
preserves and prefers, have a feature common to them not found in the others— a sentence prefixed 
to each indicating its derivation from some thaumaturgic compilation. And to this it is to be added 
that B presents the three arranged as one coherent whole, with no mark of division in the text to 
show that they are distinct legends (pp. 44.8^-4495; whereas the others are distinguished by a 
rubricated initial letter set in the left-hand margin (pp.4495, 450 5); and only the last (the Daire 
chapter) lacks a rubricated title.^ 

In this MS. its editor (as Father Hogan tells us, Anal. Boll., p. 539) has collected several Lives of 
Saints, "casque fere non integras," to be used "pro legendario in officio chori." It will, appear, on 
inspection of the text as printed below, that though Muirchu's work is incompletely given in it, the 
defect of matter is not the result of mutilation or decay, but is due to the scribe, who either failed to 
obtain a full text of the Life, or intentionally cut it short in transcription. 

It is questionable whether the whole of Muirchu's work can have been contained in the exemplar 
whence B was copied. It might be supposed that, if Book 11. (as in A) had been in the scribe's 
hands, he would not have failed to transcribe it as well as Book i. But (as has been seen) he has 

' By an oversight, the initial letter also is wanting to this chapter. 


had access to the closing chapter of Book ii., and has interpolated it into Book i. There are signs 
that he was limited by space in his selection of matter, for he omits one chapter (26) of Book i. 
altogether, and severely curtails another (24). He has reached his 303rd folio, and may well have 
thought that in his few remaining pages (there are but seven more leaves in the volume) there was 
not room for the details of St. Patrick's death and burial which fill the larger part of Muirchu's 
Book II. 

Before closing this survey of Muirchu's First Book, it is worth while to 
compare with it the V. T. (Colgan's Vita vii.) so far as the two run parallel. 

Of the three Homilies, or Parts, so called, Part i. (pp. 8—60) closely follows (with 
many interpolated details and incidents) the order of our Book i. {cc. 1-2 1), that is, 
its Narrative proper — ending with the submission of King Laeghaire' {V. Z, p. 60 
= Muirchu, p. \ob, in/r.). Part 11. diverges from it entirely; and it is not till after 
a long interval, in the middle of Part iii., that ( V. T,, p. 220) we meet with incidents 
related in the closing capita (the Appendix) of Muirchu's Book i. Three of these 
capita — the story of MacCuil, that of the heathens building on the Lord's Day, and 
that of Daire (told in full as in A), — occur in V. T., in., pp. 220—230 (with some 
other matter inserted before the last-named, in the same order as in the text of 
A (cc. 23, 25, 24.)} The fourth (c. 26) — the fruitful field turned into a saltmarsh — 
which, as we have seen, B omits, though it occurs in A (in text and Ta6te alike), 
appears nowhere in V. T. Of the three capita (27, 28, 29) which are not given in 
the text of A, though their titles appear in its Tadte, one only — the last in the 
Tad/e — is referred to, but very briefly, farther on in K T. (iii., p. 248), that namely 
which relates the judgment inflicted on Coirthech. 

These facts suggest the inferences (i) that the authority followed by the 
compilers of V. T., in the places above referred to, was either Muirchu's Book i. 
or a work closely similar to it both in contents and in arrangement, — and (2) 
that this authority was more nearly akin to the A text than to the B text of 
Muirchu, though it had something in common with B as against A. In next 
chapter it will be shown that V. T. reproduces also the greater part of Muirchu's 
Book II. — another mark of affinity with A as against B, which latter ms., as we 
have seen, exhibits but one of the capita of Book 11. — the last — misplacing it in 
the middle of Book x. It is remarkable that this chapter is the only part of 
Book II. of which V. T. has no trace. 

1 To this, however, it gives a different termination. 

' This is the order oi £, as well as the text of .<4 ; in the lable of Titles {A), the order is 2'^, 24, 25 ; 
the alteration being made probably in order to bring cc. 24 and 26 together, because of their evident afBnity. 


CONTENTS OF THE MS.— continued. 
Part ii, MUIRCHU. Book ii. 

The Second Book of the Life is, in our ms., subjoined without interval to the 
First (see pp. 13 ($ and 14(2, at foot); and is treated as an integral part of 
the work of the author. A Table is prefixed (p. 14 a), containing the tituli of 
fifteen capita} 

Of these capita, c. i begins (p. 14 a, 1. 27) with the words " Omnes psalmos ..." 
c. 2 „ {ib. 1. 34, and I, 1. i) with " Inde etiam ..." 
c. 3, ,, (14^) 1- 32) with " Consuitudo aulem ..." 
For the remaining capita, see the Table below, p. xxxix. 

This Book is short, and its structure is inartificial. It begins with (c. i) 
an account of the Saint's devotional practices, dwelling especially on his 
habit of doing reverence to the cross. This leads to {c. 2) the story of a way- 
side cross, to which, after he had passed it unawares, his charioteer directed 
his attention, and of a miracle thereupon ensuing ; and this again is followed 
{c. 3) by another miraculous incident, attested likewise by the charioteer, in which, 
(as in c. 25 of Book i.) the Saint's reverence for the Lord's Day is noted. Then 
come eleven capita [cc, 4—14), forming a continuous record of St. Patrick's death 
and burial, and of the contest between the Churches of Down and Armagh for 
the possession of his remains. Finally, the author reverts (" iterum recurrat 
oratio,^' c. i57 to the subject of c. i. — the religious life of Patrick — and declares 
the supernatural aid by which it was sustained, namely, the regular colloquies 
held with him by the angelic visitant spoken of in Book i. [cc. i, 7). Thence, in 
this concluding chapter, the author is naturally led to repeat some things already 
related in that record of the Saint's youth ; his age (sixteen) when he was 
captured — the period (six years) of his captivity — Slemish, the scene of it — his 
employment as herdsman — his hundredfold prayers day and night. But to these 
he adds some fresh matter — that to herd swine was part of his employment ; that 

' As printed by Father Hogan, and in the Rolls edition, the tttulz seem to be but fourteen in number.. 
But it is clear that "De diligentia orationis" (line 27 of p. :4a) is a fifteenth titulus, and relates to the 
closing paragraphs of Book II. (p. 16b), from "iterum recurrat oratio" (line 4) to end. The sentence 
(p. 1412, lines 18-26) -which separates tituli 14 and 15 is, as Dr. W. Stokes has pointed out ( V. T., p. 297),. 
misplaced, and belongs to c. 9, after which he has accordingly printed it. This sentence is also read 
continuously with the contents of c. 9, in V. T., p. 254, the whole in Latin almost verbatim as in Muirchu. 

2 See note ", p. xli, in/r. 


when they had strayed, the angel helped him to find them ; that the angel's visit 
recurred every week on the seventh day;^ that these visits took place thirty times 
on the hill of Skerry (near Slemish) ; that on one occasion the angel, in passing 
thence to Slemish, in his ascent heavenward left his footprint on the rock of 
the summit ;^ that the spot so marked was (in the narrator's time), resorted to by 
the faithful " as a place where prayer was sure to win the happiest fulfilment." 

It appears, then, that this Second Book, like the First, is in part an orderly 
narrative {cc. 4-14) of the death and burial of the Saint, and in part an irregular 
collection {cc. 1-3 and 15) of acts and practices ascribed to him. But here we 
discern less attempt at construction than in Book i. ; and such structure as there 
is, is broken ; for (as the tituli show) the subject of the opening three capita 
(cc. 1-3) is resumed in the last one, though they are separated from it by the 
interposed eleven capita (cc. 4—14), which give the history of the Saint's burial 
and what followed. Yet in these ill-fitting parts there is an unmistakable 
uniformity of style which marks the whole as the work of one author ; moreover, 
as of the same author who gave us the First Book, with its better conceived 
and more regularly executed plan. The high-flown and pseudo-classical language 
in which (e.g.) the prolonged daylight (cc. 8, 9), the fiery eruption (c. 12), and the 
flood (c. 13) are described, bespeak the same hand which, in Book i., gave us the 
overwrought battle-piece of c. 18, as well as the pompous phrases of c. 23, and 
of the Preface. — Traces of Muirchu's method are also to be found in the frequent 
suggestions in Book 11. of parallelisms between the incidents of the life of 
Patrick and those of Bible history, especially of the Old Testament. Thus, as 
in Book i. we find reminiscences of the Book of Genesis (c. 13), and that of 
Daniel (cc. 15, 20), of the Gospel of St. Matthew (c. 16), and of the Acts (c. 17), so, 
in Book 11., illustrations are drawn from the lives of Gideon (c. 3), of Moses (c. 5), 
of Hezekiah (c. 9),' of Jacob (c 10), and of Elisha (c. 14). Thus, too, the con- 
veyance of the Saint's corpse to Downpatrick by a pair of unbroken oxen is told 
in this Book (c. 11) in suchwise as to recall the story, in i Samuel vi. 7-4, of the 
Ark borne by two milch kine to Bethshemesh — just as in Book i. the account 
(c. 20) of his encounter with the wizard before Laeghaire is shaped on the lines 
of the chapters in Exodus (vii-ix) in which Moses contends with the magicians 
of Pharaoh.* 

Thus we arrive at a twofold conclusion about this Book 11. : — (i) That, as the 

■ No doubt because (as c. 3 tells us) his Lord's Day observance began at vespers of Saturday. 

2 In c. II of Book I., this incident is touched on, Skerry being designated not by name, but as 
" alier mons" merely. The footprint left on the rock is there suggested (though not directly mentioned) 
in the words "^resso uesiigio in Jieira." See pp. xxv, xxxii, su;pr. 

2 See above, note ' to p. xxxvii, for the misplacement of this illustration. 

* Professor Zimmer {Celtic Church, p. 17) assigns Book 11. to a different, but hardly later, author, 
describing it as "an Appendix . . . written before 730" ; but gives no reasons for this opinion. Dr. Bury, 
on the other hand, regards it as undoubtedly the work of Muirchu {Guardian, ut sujir.), on grounds of 
internal evidence, as above. Muirchu may have written as late as 730. His master lived till 699. 

A token of the early date of this Book is the use of the early form " Mac hi" of the name of Armagh. 
This is in c. 4. In the corresponding titulus, it is significant that the scribe writes "innichi" (unmeaningly ; 
p. 14 a, line 5) for '■' iMachV (as Fr. Hogan corrects), showing that this form of the name was unfamiliar 
to him (writing soon after 800), and was therefore, even then, archaic. 



Style and diction show, it is one work, of one author; but (2) that it is formed 
by the mere collocation of three very unequal portions, of which the third {c. 15) 
is a continuation of the first {cc. 1—3); while the interposed second {cc, 4-14) is in 
substance distinct from them. 

A further examination reveals the fact that this second part (which forms a 
continuous and complete narrative) had at one time a separate existence as a 
distinct document. The evidence of this fact is as follows : — 

Of the fifteen capita set forth in the Table (p. 14), the eleventh {"■ De consilio 
sepulturae") begins (p. 15 <5, line 36) with the words ^^ Quando autcm angelus ad 
eum uenit.''^ Before these words the numeral " •uiii*" is placed in our ms. No 
explanation of this insertion has hitherto been offered; nor of the " •ui*" which 
stands at the beginning of line 22. The scribe must have copied them from his 
exemplar without understanding them, for he has set a point over the 'ui*, with 
a "z" (his sign of doubt) in the margin. But when we call to mind that this 
c. II is the eighth of the capita 4—14, which, as we have seen, are a substantially 
independent and complete narrative, we are at once led to conjecture that this 
"•uiii*", and therefore also the " •ui*", are the surviving vestiges of a numeration 
of the series of capita which begins with c. 4. Of this series, in which c. 11 was 
numbered "'uiii'", c. 4 would necessarily have been numbered "-i*". And, 
accordingly, on looking back to c. 4, we find that it is the opening, worded in a 
suitable form, of the record of all that preceded and followed the Saint's death : — 
"Post uero miracula tanta . . . uenit ad eum angelus et dixit illi de morte sua^ 
Having thus obtained cc. i and uiii of the narrative, the reconstruction of the 
whole series (subject to some small corrections) is easy. Thus : — 

i. De eo quod angelus eum prohibuii . . . = f . 4, 

ii. De rubo ardenie ... = c. %, „ 

iii. De iiii petitionihus ... = c. 6, „ 

iiii. De die mortis eius ... = c. 1, f. 8 r" & 

u. De termino contra noctem . , . «/ | _ „ , 

de caligine . . . ahstersa ) ~ • ' "' " 

ui. \_De sacrificio db ep. Tassach ...]'' = „ 

uii. De uigiliis primae noctis . 
uiii. De consilio sepulturae . . . 
uiiii. De igne . . . erumpente 
X. De freto sussum surgente , 
xi. De felici seductione . . . 

= c. 10, „ 

= c. II, 

= c. \^, f . 8 »", a, 
= c. 13, „ 

= c. 14, „ 

(ending) . 

f. 8 r° a, line 18 {"Post uero miracula . . ."). 

29 {" Inde cum comitihus . . ."). 

45 {"Prima petitio . . ."). 

8 (" Reuertere igiiur . . ."). 

8 {" Et contra noctem . . ."). 

22 {" Adpropinquante autemhora . . .' 

26 {"In prima node . . ."). 
36 (" Quando autem angelus . . ."). 

4 (" Et dixit ei . . ."). 

12 {" De reliquiis . . ."). 

27 {" Postea autem sepulto . . ."). 
5, „ 4 (". . , populorum facta est"). 

In another quarter we find in a different form corroboration of the inference 
above drawn from the inserted ""ui"" and "'uiii"". In V. T., the narrative of 
the death and burial, as in cc. 4-14, opening with nearly identical words of intro- 
duction, appears, abridged and divested of its rhetoric, but with little omission, 
or even variation of order, in the incidents, placed at the end of Part iii. 

1 Father Hogan {in loc.) notes the fact that these two titles are to be read as one. 

» This title is obviously required, to distinguish the incident recorded in the paragraph, which retains its 
original number " -ui" "- 

E 2 


(pp. 252 sqq.\ as the conclusion of the biography of the Saint, — while quite apart 
from it, much earlier in this work, in Part 11. (pp. 124, 126), we meet with the 
substance of cf. i, 2, 3. Apparently, therefore, the compilers of the two Homilies, 
Parts II. and iii. of V.T., learned the contents of these two groups of capita from 
two distinct and separate documents, which Muirchu also had used (and translated 
into Latin), and had combined, with such amplifications as his sophisticated taste 
suggested, and with the addition of c. 15, to form his Book 11. 

The " Four Petitions " {c. 6) do not appear as such in V. T. ; but the first of them is given in 
substance (iii., p. 252). The Tassach paragraph (following c. 9) is also passed over, but appears 
shortly after (iii., p. 258 ; see also i., p. 62). The burning bush of c. 5 is left out, though the other 
contents of that chapter are given. 

In Fiacc's Hymn, likewise, the main points of these narrative capita (4-14) appear (lines 45-64), 
including the burning bush, and the ministration of Tassach (lines 48, 53, 54), but omitting the 
reference to Dichu.' But oicc. i, 2, 3, 4 nothing appears except the opening words off. i, which 
occur earlier in the Hymn (line 25), and come originally from Sechnall's Hymn (line 85).^ So much 
doubt, however, rests on Fiacc's Hymn, as to its integrity, and as to the date of it (or of the older 
part of it), that it is here referred to only as showing that the contents of cc. 4-14 of Muirchu 11. were 
(in some shape) in circulation as a separate document. 

Yet the corroborative evidence thus drawn from V. T. is not conclusive ; for 
the facts admit of another explanation. It maybe that the compilers of V. T. had 
before them Muirchu' s Book ir., as in our ms., and used its contents (simplifying 
its language) as their work required. Thus, the capita which tell of the Saint's 
devotions and miracles would find their place in Part 11. ; while the capita which 
form the record of his death, with its precedent and consequent circumstances, 
would be separated from them, and would naturally appear at the close of the 
biography in Part iii. This latter view seems to be confirmed by the fact that, in 
the text (Irish) of V. T., there occur again and again Latin sentences, almost 
verbatim from Muirchu, Book 11., drawn from both portions of it.' But, on the 
other hand, the very fact of these insertions being in Latin marks them as inter- 
polations, and bespeaks a later hand. If so, it may be that the original compilers 
drew the two portions of material from two separate Irish documents, and a 
subsequent interpolator added the Latin sentences from Muirchu's completed work. 

It is clear, from inspection of the contents of these eleven capita, that the 
document, however rehandled by Muirchu, must have been derived in substance 
(as we have seen certain parts of Book i. were derived) from the traditions of 
Down. As already noted (p. xxvii, supr.), it shows the same familiarity with the 
topography of Down as appears in the Ulster period of the former Book, with 
even more exactness of detail. " Sabul'' and the '■'■ Collum Bouis" reappear 
[cc. 5, 13); and with them other place-names — "-Findubair" "Clocher," "Dunleth- 
glaisse'^ {c. ii, now Downpatrick) ; also the river " Cabcenne" (c. 14) — and likewise 
the name of the Bishop (" Tassack") who gave the viaticum to the dying Saint, and 

1 Of these lines, eight (45, 46, 49, 50, 55, 56, 63, 64), including all the leading points of cc. 4-14 of 
Muirchu ll., are admitted as genuine by Dr. Atkinson (see p. xxxi, su^r.). ^ L.H., t. I., p. 12. 

2 See, e.g., V. T. 11., p. 124 (= Muirchu 11. i) ; ill., p. 254 (= M. 11., c. 9— the misplaced passage, for 
which see note to p. xxxvii) : also I,, p. 62 (= M. 11. c. 9 — the passage about Tassach). 


even of the owner {^'■ConaW''') of the oxen which conveyed his remains to their 
resting-place (tf. 9, 11). The special promise included here (c. 6), but not found 
in the corresponding passage of V. T. in., nor among the "petitions" subjoined 
in the supplement to Tirechan (p. 31 a, in/r.), as one of "the petitions of Patrick," 
of blessing on the hospitable house of Dichu,' points still more plainly to the same 
origin. — But more than all these, and conclusive in the matter, is the obvious fact 
that the whole narrative of cc. 4—14 is unmistakably written in advocacy of the 
claim of Downpatrick, in the controversy with Armagh about the possession of the 
grave of the Saint. Due honour is rendered to Armagh as his special and favoured 
Church, where he wished to lay his bones {cc. 4—6) ; but that his body (after a 
struggle for the possession of it) was buried at Downpatrick, the supposed sub- 
sequent seizure and transfer of it to Armagh being but a divinely-ordained 
illusion, is maintained as certain. 

We thus arrive at good grounds for affirming that in the document which 
thus emerges we have the tradition which Muirchu learned from the Church of 
Down ; a tradition, we may safely assume, well established there long before 
his time — that is, before the year 700. And we may further infer, from the fact 
of its preservation in our ms. — the special "Book 0/ Armagh" — that this tradition, 
conceding to Down the honour of possessing the Saint's remains, yet inciden- 
tally affirming his signal preference for Armagh, and deriving the Primacy of 
that See from him, was accepted at Armagh at the time when Ferdomnach 
transcribed Muirchu' s work {circ. 807), — probably about a century after that work 
was completed. 

Of the other four capita (i, 2, 3, and 15) of Book 11., the first three yield no 
note of place; but in the last the author reverts to the scenes of Patrick's 
captivity.^ Thus through the whole of this Book the local references point to no 
region of Ireland save to Down and Antrim — the same region to which belongs 
the record in Book i. of the third period of the Life of Patrick. And thus the 
view above put forward (pp. xxiv— xxvi, xxxii, xxxiii) that, for the composition, 
of Book I., Muirchu had obtained from that region special knowledge of its tradi- 
tions of that period, is now confirmed by, and in its turn confirms, the results of 
our examination of Book 11. It is to be added that the latter Book appears to 
have been written without the authority or co-operation of Aedh, by Muirchu 
independently. The address, "mi Domine Aido," of the Preface, and the note 
'•^dictante Aiduo'^ (pp. 39 a, 40 a, in/r.), relate to Book i. exclusively. 

Another source for (at least) one of these four capita (i, 2, 3, 15) is to be noted 
as probable — a record which has claims to be counted contemporary with 
St. Patrick — the Hymn (referred to above, p. xl, and note ^) of St. Sechnall. From 

' But see Vita lll. (Colgan, Tr. Th., p. 28; also as edited by Dr. Bury in Trans. R.I.A., t. xxxii (c), 
p. 223) for this promise : cp. also V.T., I., p. 36. 

' The words " iterufn recurrat oratio," with which c. 15 begins, are thus to be understood as = ' To 
revert to the subject of prayer' \jcil., to that which was begun 4n c. i]. Dr. Bury {Hermafh.,yo\. xi\.\ 
No. xxviii, pp. 1 78-r8o)- advanced a different explanation of this sentence, and of the position of this chapter. 
But (in a letter to the Editor) he has since accepted that given above. In Muirchu's usage, oratio always 
= 'prayer ' (see p. 14a, lines i, 27, 33) ; never = ' narrative.' 


line 85 of that Hymn — '■'■ Hymnos cum Apocalypsi psalmosque cantat DeV — Muirchu 
borrows his opening sentence, altering it into conformity with the " psalmis et 
hymnis et canticis spiriiuaiibus" of St. Paul (Eph. v. 19, Vg.), and adding the 
statement that such devotions formed part of his daily worship. This tradition 
may have reached Muirchu from Sletty, for we find it also in Fiacc's Hymn 
(line 25). But inasmuch as another coincidence with Sechnall's Hymn appears 
elsewhere in Muirchu,^ it is probable that here too he, and the other hymnist, 
echo Sechnall. For the other devotional practices ascribed to Patrick in these 
capita, we find no ground to conjecture whence the tradition may have come ; 
except as regards his reverence for the Lord's Day (11. c. 3), which, as it appears 
also in i. c. 25, presumably belongs (as that chapter does) to the traditions of 

The Life ends on f. 8 v" (p. r6), but does not entirely fill that page. In col. b 
two paragraphs follow, unconnected with all that precedes, and with one another. 
Neither appears to belong to iVluirchu. — The former of them gives an inventory 
of copies of the Scriptures and articles for church use, which the Saint carried 
with him across the Shannon — matters not within Muirchu' s range, but germane 
rather to the records of Tirechan, who deals with the mission to Connaught, and 
frequently mentions gifts of books and church furniture.^ — The second, which is 
a chronological summary, is open to the same observation : its affinities are not 
with Muirchu' s work, but with Tirechan' s, who is exact in his frequent statements 
of dates. The notes of time in Muirchu are but few (i. 1-4; 11. 7, 15); and it is 
remarkable that of the six numerals in this paragraph, three directly contradict 
three of those given in his text; — age at capture (ir. 15), terra of service {ib.\ 
age at death (11. 7). Here, the authority alleged for the figures is " Constans " — 
who "obtained them among the Gauls" — a person not elsewhere mentioned. 

Possibly this, and likewise the former paragraph, may belong to a tradition handed down from 
some of the fellow-missionaries who came with the Saint from France, and preserved in the Churches 
over which they were placed (see Tirechan, p. 18, infr., sub-column 2, De nominibus Francorum; also 
p. 24 b). It seems likely that the position these two paragraphs occupy as a postscript to Muirchu, 
is due not to Ferdomnach, but to the scribe of his exemplar, who may have inserted them, intending 
them to supply what Muirchu had omitted, and to offer an alternative computation of dates. See 
farther on (Chap, vi.) for the summary of figures similarly appended to Tirechan (p. 30 b"). As they 
stand here, our scribe probably copied them just as he found them. Otherwise, he would, no doubt, 
have placed them with that other supplementary matter, after Tirechan. 

Two other detached paragraphs follow, on p. i7<5 (f. 9 r") ; preceding the 
opening of Tirechan' s records. These, however, are, as will be shown, not a 
postscript to Muirchu, but a prefix to Tirechan ; and the examination of them, 
therefore, belongs to our next Chapter. 

^ I. 6, p. 3 a, infr. {"reie nationes .... u( ;piscaret") ; op. " Nationes ut ^iscaret per doctrinae 
retia" (Sechn., line 14). But both seem to come from Patrick's " oporiei piscare .... retia iendere," in 
Confessio (p. 47 b, infr. ; also White, s. 40). 

2 See, e.g. pp. 17 «, 24 15, 25 a, 28 a, zqb. 


CONTENTS OF THE MS.— continued. 


Though Tirechan's Memoirs begin on the page (17, f. 9 r"') next after that on which 
Muirchu's end, the formal opening of the work is placed in the second column — 
not in the first, which is occupied by two paragraphs, a longer and a shorter. 
These, as has been remarked at the end of last chapter, are to be regarded, not 
as subjoined to Muirchu, but as prefixed to Tirechan ; — a fact which, indeed, is 
indicated by our scribe on the face of his text, for they begin with a capital letter 
(P) of conspicuous design and size, such as is not to be found at the opening of 
any previous division of the ms. ; whereas the actual first sentence of the work, 
and the heading that introduces it, are marked by initials of no unusual shape or 

On examination of the contents of the first column, it will be found that they 
confirm this external indication, as the following observations show : — 

(i) The first paragraph of the column is clearly a stray passage from Tirechan's 
text.^ That it is his, will be evident to anyone who compares it with regard to its 
style and manner, as well as to its substance — the persons treated of, and the 
scenes of the incidents — with Tirechan's records of the Connaught mission. Its 
position in those records, even, may be approximately determined by its internal 
indications. It may safely be inserted in f. xiv" b (p. 24). For (i) its scene 
(see next page, under b) lies in Roscommon and Eastern Mayo ; and it must 
therefore come in after the crossing of the Shannon, and after the earlier stages 
of the route through Roscommon, which is clearly indicated as far as Rath- 
crochan; — that is, in Book 11., after \2 v" a, line 21: and (2) it relates the 
baptism of Sachellus,^ and must therefore stand before the visit to Selcae {\2v°b, 
line 25), in which Sachellus is named second in the list of Patrick's companions 
(lines 21—23).' 

(a) Over and above the general and unmistakable resemblance in style, manner, and character of 

' Probably et has dropped out of the text before Patricius (line i), or autem after it. 

''■ The ordination of Sachellus in Rome is of course introduced here by anticipation. 

' In like manner Bronus, who stands first in this list, has previously appeared in the narrative (12 r° a). 


incidents which this paragraph bears to Tirechan's Memoirs, the following special points of affinity 
are to be noted : — 

Cp. qr°a,L i6, " Immolauit filium Patricio " ; wM "Filium meum . . . ego immolo Deo Patricii 

et Patricio" (v'h, 11. 25-27). 
,, 1.17, " Exiuit cum Patricio ad with '' Uenii cum Tatncio et legit in Ardd Mac/iae" 

legendum"; (13 ;-°3, 11. 10, 11). 

„ 1.20, " Scripsit i/li librumpsalmorum with " De illis patinos quadratos uidi (11 v° b, 
quern uidi" ; ^ 11. 5, 6); " Scripsit manu sua literas quas 

hodie conspeximus oculis nostris" (iz 
v° b, 11. 29-31). 
,,11.21,22, "Partem de reliquis Petri et with " Partem de reliquiis Petri et Pauli ?/ a/zbm?;? 
VdiaMLaurentii et Stephani." . . ." (15 f i, 11. 37, 38). 

(3) For its position in its text, we observe, farther : — (i) That, in associating Sachellus with 
Cethiacus,' it speaks of the latter as of a person who had already been introduced to the reader, and 
thus indicates that its place is after f. i2v°a, where Cethiacus first appears in the narrative of Book 11. 
(ii) That the districts named in it (lines i and 3) reappear shortly after the place at which we have 
been thus led to insert it : — in liv" a, lines 14, i j (" Campus Airthic") ; line 1 7 {" Drummut Cerrigi") ; 
b line 2 {"Natrniu")? Moreover, as here inserted, it serves to account for the sentence " revertebatur in 
Campuvi Airthic" (13 r" a, lines 14, 15). Patrick's '■'■return" to Magh Airthic implies that after being in 
that region, he had left it. This departure the text of the narrative as it stands does not relate; but the 
restoration of the stray paragraph of 9 r' a to izv" b supplies it. Thus the route indicated is — ( i ) from 
Rathcrochan to "Ardlicce" (Kilkeevan), due west ( 1 2 z)" a) ; (2) into Magh Airthic (Tibohine), which 
borders it on the north (9 r° a) ; and thence westward into Drummut Cerrigi (the eastern side of 
Mayo, now the barony of Costello). Then, after a circuit round places which have not been identified 
with certainty — (^"Selcae" the "trames Gregirgi" "Drummae" {12 v" b, 13 r" a) — it reaches " Cell Adrochtae'^ 
(Killaraght) on Lough Gara, and thence, passing southward, "returns" to Magh Airthic {ib.). After 
this follows a second excursion (13^° a and b) into the Costello district. The restored paragraph in 
this way not only fits into Tirechan's Memoirs, but fills a gap in the text as presented by our MS. 
The only doubt remaining is, whether it is to stand before or after the passage beginning "Franci 
uero . . ." (i2Z'°3, lines 12-24). The latter seems the preferable alternative. 

Note farther that its account of the relics acquired by St. Patrick in Rome is necessary to explain 
his gift to Olcan, 15 r°b, infr. 

(ii) The latter of the two paragraphs of p. 17, headed '•'■Dicta Patricii,^'' consists 
of three sayings attributed to the Saint. The second of them is taken, with 
trifling variation, from his Epistle (see White's Libri Sancti Patricii). Of the 
first, the greater part occurs almost verbatim in Tirechan's opening section 
(in col. b of same page), there cited as Patrick's own account of his early 
journeyings in his " Commemoratio iabortcm.^^^ The third directs (on Roman 
authority, as it seems) the constant use of the " Kyrie " in all churches of his 

Thus the first has an obvious relation to the opening of Tirechan's Memoirs ; and the same may 
be said of the third, which, as a direction to all Patrician Churches, is naturally connected with a 

' Both are named in Book I. (p. 18 b), in the catalogue of the clerics ordained by Patrick : Cethiacus 
again, p. 20 b. 

^ For Magh Airthic, Drummut Cerrigi, and Nairniu, see the maps in O'Donovan's Hy Many and 
Hy Fiachrach. 

' Whether the reference here is (i) to a lost work of St. Patrick, or (2) to a stray passage of his Confessio 
(as Prof. Zimmer supposes, p. 50), or (3) to a passage in Ultan's " liber," mistakenly supposed by Tirechan 
to belong to the Confessio (as Dr. Bury with more probability suggests), — is uncertain. 


work written (see the beginning of his second Book, f. 1 1 ^ i) in defence of the supremacy of the 
" Heir of Patrick." Yet it is hardly likely to have been prefixed here by the author, but rather by 
the scribe, or an owner, of the exemplar whence our ms. was copied. 

The question here arises, How come these two paragraphs to hold so singular 
a priority, — not postponed, as one might expect, to the end of the narrative to 
which they are attached, but conspicuously prefixed to its opening section, which 
they actually displace from its proper position in the first column ? The explana- 
tion probably is, that this peculiar arrangement is due to the person (scribe or 
owner) who inserted these paragraphs into the exemplar of our ms., not to the 
scribe of our ms. itself. The former, having lighted on (i) a stray section that 
had become somehow detached from the Memotrs, and (2) a short memorandum 
of " Patrick's sayings," which had some apparent connexion with Tirechan's 
matter and aim, has transcribed them on a blank leaf at the beginning of his ms. 
The latter, in copying from it, has let them stand as he found them — first in order. 
In his minute writing, they fill but the first column of the page, leaving the second 
column free ; and on it, accordingly, he makes the Memoirs begin. 

In passing from the first to the second of the two Patrician histories preserved 
in our ms., one is conscious of a marked change from the carefully-composed 
narrative of Muirchu, with its artificial structure, and studied diction, to the loose 
compilation, put together with small regard to general effect, or to style, which 
Tirechan has left us. Of him we only know (i) that he was a disciple of Ultan 
(Bishop of Ardbraccan in Meath, ob. 657), from whom he obtained material, 
oral and written (pp. ij b, 11. i, 29 ; 21b, 11. 23, 24), for his work — apparently for 
the first part of it only, which deals with Meath; (2) that, inasmuch as he seems 
to speak of Ultan as no longer living, he cannot have written before 657 ; (3) that 
he wrote for readers in Meath (as is implied in '■^scitis quia in vestris regionibus gesta 
sunt" p. 2\ b); (4) that he himself belonged to the region of Mayo now known 
as Tirawley (p. 20 b, 11. 18—28). A reference (as it seems) to a recent pestilence 
{mortalitates nouissinias ; p. 23 a, 1. 9) shows that he probably wrote after 664.' 
Of his work, great part professes little more than to be an itinerary of Patrick's 
journeys ; and here and there it becomes a mere onomasticon. Though it 
includes some picturesque touches, or even stories (as notably that of the King's 
daughters at the well of Clebach, pp. 23, 24) told with some grace of language, 
they come on the reader as a surprise, contrasting, as they do, with the dry 
records that precede and follow them. He lacked the skill, or perhaps the 
ambition, to fashion his gathered materials — some of them matter-of-fact prosaic 
details, some imaginative legends, probably in poetic form — into a homogeneous 
narrative, as Muirchu had done, or tried to do. His method throughout follows 
a topographical scheme : he deals habitually with place-names, and regularly 

' So Dr. Bury, E.H. R., vol. xvii., p. 236. For these dates, see Ann. Ult., vol. I., pp. 114, 118. 



records ordinations and the founding of Churches. He attempts also — ag-ain 
unlike Muirchu — to fix the chronology of his history, computing from the 
epoch of the Passion, and by reference to the regnal years of Laeghaire, the 
Ard-Righ (p. 17 <5, 11. 32 et sqq. ; see also p. 24 b, 11. 7—10). 

Accordingly, the order of his work is simple. It first deals (Book i.) with 
St. Patrick's proceedings in central Ireland — in Meath chiefly, and Longford 
— which belong to the first year of his mission. It then (in Book 11.) passes 
with him across the Shannon, tracing with much fulness his journeys through 
Connaught ; thence into Western and Northern Ulster, briefly indicating his 
course from Donegal to Antrim — but with no mention of Down, and only a passing 
word possibly implying a visit of the Saint to Armagh, — though significant 
references to that Church occur here and there, and to set forth its dignity and 
rights is our author's avowed aim. This circuit is related in the form of a con- 
tinuous chronicle; but towards the close of it a passage is inserted, which admits 
that there were three crossings of the Shannon, and three missionary journeys 
occupying in all seven years^ — implying apparently, or at least suggesting, that 
the three are here thrown into one narrative, and compressed into a much shorter 
period. Then comes the Saint's return to Meath (p. soa); followed by a very 
brief note of his move southward to Leinster, and thence to Cashel, at which 
point the Book breaks off abruptly, perhaps incomplete. 

We proceed to enter on a detailed analysis of the work. 

The author begins his history without a formal preface, such as that of 
Muirchu. Even the brief superscription prefixed to it (17 <J, 1. i) is apparently 
due to an editor, being in the third person (" Tirechan .... haec scripsit . . . ."); 
not in the first, as is the narrative ("Inueni iiii nomina . . . ."). Like Muirchu's 
Life, it is divided into two Books. Book i. opens with a short summary of 
St. Patrick's early life — his bondage under Miliuc in the Slemish region, his 
escape under the Angel's direction, his travels in foreign parts, — drawn, pro- 
fessedly, from the Saint's own writings, and partly also from traditions received 
from Bishop Ultan, whose disciple he was, as above noted. To this summary, 
which agrees pretty closely with Muirchu,^ is subjoined a chronological note, 
fixing the date of the opening (presumably) of this mission of Patrick at the fifth 
year of King Laeghaire, and his death in the year "436 after the Passion of 
Christ," being "two [or five] years'" before that of Laeghaire, who (he adds) 
reigned "thirty-six years."* 

' See p. 29 ^ : " Peruenit Patricius ^er Sinonam iii uicibus, et uii annos conplemi in occidentali 
^laga" — a sentence seemingly misplaced. It would come in more properly in the preceding column 
(p. 29 a), where the Saint's progress from Connaught to Ulster begins, — either (1. 25) before " f err exit," 
or after 1. 36, before the crossing of Assaroe. The latter alternative has in its favour the position of the 
parallel passage in V. T., 11., p. 146. See p. Ivii, infr., note *. 

^Peculiar to Tirechan are (i) the patronymic (" Maccuboin") of Miliuc ; (2) the "seven years" 
journeying; (3) the sojourn ("thirty years") in the "Insula Aralanensis." 

^ The doubt between " ii " and "u" shows that Tirechan was here following a written authority — 
Ultan's "Liber," of course. — Todd, St. Patrick, p. 395, note '. 

* According to Ann. Ult., vol. I., pp. 4, 20, Laeghaire's reign is dated 428-463. 


Dr. Bury' has shown that for " ccccxxxui " we are to read " ccccxxxiii ", so that the date intended 
will be A.D. 461 (assuming the year of the Passion to be 29). Thus, taking Laeghaire's reign to have 
ended ^'■two years" later (463), it must have begun in 428 ; and Patrick's arrival in Laeghaire's "fifth 
year" is thereby fixed in 432-3. On this computation, therefore, his mission extended over twenty- 
eight years. 

The Book then enters on the actual narrative, beginning with the Saint's 
arrival (p. 18 a), with a great company of fellow-workers from Gaul, at the islands 
that lie off the Dublin coast, and his landing at the '■'■Campus Breg^' (Eastern 
Meath). To this region it assigns the opening of his mission, — his first convert, 
"Sescneus," afterwards a bishop, and the foundation of his first Church. Of his 
previous touching at a point on the Wicklow coast, and his voyage thence north- 
ward to Strangford Lough, and his successful preaching in Down, it makes no 
mention ; nor (at this stage of the history) of his revisiting the abode of Miliuc. 
His next converts, according to our author, were "Benignus" and his father, 
whose hospitality he enjoyed at *' Ostium Ailbine^'' (Delvin). Of Benignus 
(= Benineus, or Benen), so conspicuous in two incidents recorded in Muirchu's 
Life, a picturesque story is here related; and it is noted (as in Muirchu i., c. 28 ; 
see below, p. 449 b, 11. 8— 11) that this youth was designated by the Saint to be 
one of his successors in the Church of Armagh. The mention of these future 
Bishops leads next to the introduction at this point (p. 18^) of a long catalogue^ 
of Bishops ordained by Patrick, and of other conspicuous members of his 
company, followed (p. 19 «) by a list of eight Churches founded by him in the 
Campus Breg, with some notices of persons connected with them. To the last 
in order of these, Kannanus, is added the record that he was the person employed 
by the Saint to light the "blessed fire" at Slane'; and thus the thread of the 
history is resumed, and falls into parallelism with Muirchu's much ampler 
narrative of Patrick's triumph over the King and his wizards at Tara. 

Of the two accounts of the Saint's conflict with the powers of heathendom, Tirechan's, though 
the briefer and less lavish of marvels, is the more vivid. He varies slightly from Muirchu, naming 
the two wizards differently, and speaking of a third* (unnamed) ; and while he agrees as to the doom 
that befell each, he differs in their order of occurrence. He adds a few graphic touches, and affirms 
that he has seen the stone that marks the spot where the second wizard was dashed to pieces, " at 
the southern and eastern borders" (of Tara apparently) (p. 19 5, 1. 4). But he omits the name of 
that royal abode here, and only mentions it in passing, farther on, where he records how the Saint 
returned "ad ciuitatem Temro," and then records Laeghaire's final refusal to be converted. In like 
manner he omits to assign Easter as the time of these events, though afterwards he implies that it 
was so ("Pasca quoque claussa") {ib., 1. 26). 

So again, farther on, he assumes that his readers know of the dream about the children of the 
wood of Fochlath, which was the cause why the Saint " rejoiced greatly " on hearing that region 
named (p. 20 a). 

Up to this point, our author's narrative, though evidently independent of 
Muirchu's (which indeed may have been written somewhat later), serves to check 

' E.H.R., ut su:pr., pp. 239 et sqq. 

' This list must have been copied from a written document, as is proved by the alternative reading "iii " 
or "ui", in sub-col. 2. 

' "Ferti uirorutn Fecc," as in Muirchu, I., c. 14 (p. 6 a, in/r.). 
* But " iii " may be a scribal error for " ii " (p. 19 a, 1. 20). 

F 2 


and in the main to support it, as pointing to a common tradition underlying 
both. But henceforward, it becomes no longer confirmatory of the other (except 
indirectly), but rather complementary to it. It is, in fact, so far as it extends, a 
detailed expansion of what Muirchu sums up in the closing sentence of the main 
narrative of his First Book, " 5. Patricius . . . pro/edus a Temoria praedicauit . . . 
sequentibus signis^^ — a narrative of the mission of the Saint, first throughout 
Meath (in Book i.) ; then (in Book ii.) Connaught, and other regions. Thus, after 
the downfall of the wizards, we are led into a new series of incidents (p. 19 (5) ; — 
the Saint's visit to '' Taltena" (Telltown), where " Coirpriticus" (Coirbre), another 
of the sons of Niall, attempts to kill him ; then to the abode of a third prince of 
that house,^ Conall, who welcomes him, and is baptized and blessed ; then (after 
a passing notice of the founding of a Church) back to Tara (here first named, 
as above noted), to King Laeghaire, whom Tirechan, differing herein from 
Muirchu,^ represents as finally rejecting the Christian faith, because he held it to 
be incompatible with the duty of perpetuating the burial usages in which the sons 
of Niall recorded their inherited blood-feud against the sons of Dunlaing* {ib.). 

The text seems to need correction here, but the general drift is plain. Among the sons of Niall 
and the sons of Dunlaing, the heathen usage was maintained of burying their dead fully armed, facing 
each toward the abode of the other family, — ^those at Tara, these at Mullaghmast {" imMaistin" — 
thus keeping up the memory of their blood-feud. 

The words "quia utuntur . . . diem Domini" are not part of Laeghaire's words, but an explanatory 
parenthesis. For "_filius" (p. 20a, I. i) "Jilios" must be read if "odiui" is retained in next line.* 
But it seems better to correct "odiui" into "odii."' Thus the king's reply runs — " I, the son of Niall, 
must be buried on the hill of Tara, in warlike posture and guise ; and [so] the son of Dunlaing 
[is buried] on Mullaghmast, because of [our] implacable hatred" ("pro duritate odii"). 

Other memorials of the Saint's missionary successes in central Ireland 
occupy the remainder (pp. 20, 21) of Tirechan's Book i. ; but probably not a few 
of them are to be regarded as proleptical, and belonging to a later stage of his 
course. Some of these include details of interest ; some treat of persons who 
reappear in Book 11. One of his foundations is noted as having been the see of 
MacCairthin, brother of the mother of St. Brigid ; a second as the place where 
Brigid herself afterwards received the veil from MacCaille^; at another (where his 
name is preserved in its other shape by a stone known as the '■' Petra Coitkrigi^^) 

1 The following genealogical note will be useful here : — Eochaid had three sons, — (i) Niall, (2) Ailill, 
(3) Fiachra. — (i) Niall was father of Laeghaire, and of the Coirbre and Conall of p. 19 b. — (2) Ailill was 
progenitor of the Hy Ailella of p. 22 a [et passim). — (3) Fiachra was progenitor of the Hy Fiachrach, and 
father of Amhalghaidh, whose son was Enda, the " Endeus" of pp. 20 and 28. 

2 The accounts are only superficially discrepant ; for Muirchu's account, while it makes the King accept 
the Gospel (" credidit" p. 10 b, infr.'), implies that he did so through fear rather than conviction. 

3 It arose out of the cruel massacre of the royal daughters at Tara, by Dunlaing, King of Leinster, 
some two centuries before Laeghaire's time [Annals of Tighernach, Second Fragment, in Revue Celtique, 
vol. xvii, p. 13). 

* Odiui, odibo, odiam are used by Tirechan, as from a verb odire. 'Soxodiut, see Cicero, Philipp. xiii. 19 
(cited from a letter of M. Antony). In Lat. Vulg., these and like forms occur jiassim (e.g. Ps. xxv. 5). 

= So Todd, St. Patrick, p. 438. Possibly "duritate" may be (as he suggests) intended to express 

" Cp. Life by Cogitosus [ap. Colgan, Trias Th., p. 529), c. 3 ; also Broccan's Hymn, 11. 29, 30 [L. H., 
t. I., p. 114; t. 11., p. 41). 


the son of ''Fiacha'' (a brother of Laeghaire) incurs the Saint's curse by slaying 
two of his followers from Gaul {'' peregrinV')', for a fourth, he ordains his foster- 
ling, " Gosacht" son of his old master, Miliuc; in yet another, in a remote district, 
he places ''Bruscus" to whose burial a strange legend attaches. But for so far 
we read of no monastic body (except in the list of p. i8 b, sub-col. 3). In this list 
one "sister" appears (sub-col. 2 ; cp. for her p. 24 b, 1. 15) ; one other also early 
in this Book (p. 19 (5, 1. 30). 

But above these minor records (of p. 21), two incidents placed before them 
(p. 20) stand out as of signal importance, combining to direct the Apostle of 
Ireland to his wider sphere of labour. One arose out of the conversion of Ercc 
{"Herais"),^^\io alone did him reverence as he "entered the King's palace," 
and accepted baptism. While administering the rite to him and others, Patrick 
overheard a conversation between two chiefs who were bystanders,'^ in which one 
of them, in answer to an inquiry from the other, replied, " Enda am I, son of 
Amhalghaidh, son of Fiachra, son of Eochaidh,' from the western regions, from 
the plain of Domnon, and the Wood of Fochlath." Recognizing the name of the 
place whence the summons had come to him in the vision of his earlier years 
(which our author assumes to be known to his readers), the Saint at once 
addresses his apostolic message to Enda, and proposes to go with him on his 
journey homewards. Enda demurs, on behalf of himself and his brothers, but 
offers his young son Conall for immediate baptism. — ^With this is closely con- 
nected the second incident : it arises out of a dispute between Enda and his six 
brothers, touching the inheritance of Amhalghaidh their father, for which they 
had repaired to Tara, to seek on it the judgment of Laeghaire. The King pro- 
nounces that it shall be equally divided among the seven ; and thereupon Enda 
offers his share, and his son Conall, "to Patrick and Patrick's God." Then, 
with the King's sanction, all the brothers agree with the Saint that he and his 
company shall journey with them to the "• Mons EglV {Cruachan Aighli, now 
Croagh Patrick, in the extreme west of Mayo),* and that for their protection he 
shall make payment of the value of fifteen slaves. For this last fact our author 
refers to the Saint's own authority in his Con/essio, where accordingly it is to 
be found.* And thus Patrick sets out with these chiefs, bent on reaching his 
destination before his second Easter in Ireland, and answering at the Wood of 
Fochlath* the cry of its children, who, in his dream, had seemed to invite him. 
After this (placed awkwardly enough) the records, already noticed, of work done 

^The epithet " sacrilegus" is attached to his name, but without explanation. Muirchu (p. 7 b) relates 
this incident, but with variations, and omits the " scintillae igneae.^' He also places it earlier. 

2 The well " Loig-les," where the baptism was performed, was within the precincts of Tara (Petrie, 
Tara, pp. 123, 142). 

5 " Endeus filius Amolngid . . . . filii Fechrach filii Echach.^'' See last page, note '. 

* These two objective points, Croagh Patrick, and the "Wood of Fochlath" (which is near Killala, in 
North Mayo), are far asunder. See below, p. Iv. 

'This passage, however (for which see Conf., s. 53 [White]), is in a part of the Confessio which is not 
included in our MS. Tirechan's reference to it here is important as a proof of the genuineness of that part. 

° This wood, and the cry, are mentioned in the Confessio (p. 46 h, infr. ; s. 23 [White]) and (as 
we have seen) by Muirchu (p. 3 a, infr.) ; but its name does not appear in Tirechan before this passage 
(p. 20 a, 1. 28) ; and the voices of the children (still in the womb, according to him) farther on, p. 21 a, 1, 3. 



in Meath and its adjoining regions occupy the rest of Book i. ; but its closing 
sentence brings him to the east bank of the Shannon, and thus prepares the 
reader to follow him in his mission beyond that river, which is the main theme 
of Book II. 

In looking back over the contents of this First Book, a few points suggest 
themselves which are important, as indicating the nature of the sources whence 
our author drew his materials: — (i) when we examine the internal evidence it 
yields ; (2) when we compare it with the coextensive part of Muirchu's work. 

(i) It is observable that Tirechan takes for granted that to those for whom 
he writes his story is more or less familiar. Thus, he does not deem it necessary 
to prepare his readers, as Muirchu does (pp. 3 <5, 4 a), for the Saint's encounter 
with the king; — to premise that this king was Ard Righ; that the season was 
Easter; that it coincided with a heathen high feast; that Tara was the scene 
of it — though afterwards (p. 19^) the '^Pasca" of 1. 26, and the '' Temro'^ 
of 1. 2)2) i imply his knowledge of the time and place. This reticence we may 
attribute in part to his inaptitude to use dramatic opportunities for enhancing 
the effect of his narrative, such as Muirchu was ready to seize ; but it also 
tacitly assures us that he could safely assume the readers for whom he wrote 
— men of Meath, as he afterwards intimates in the opening of Book 11. — 
to be acquainted with these leading facts. A man who makes such an 
assumption is plainly not relating to his readers a new story, but rather 
putting together in permanent shape for their satisfaction traditional matter (oral 
or written) with which, in its main points, they were previously well acquainted. 
The same remark holds good of the repeated reference to the call from the 
children of "the Wood of Fochlath." He writes of it (p. 20a) as a familiar 
fact, without stopping to explain why the Saint rejoiced when he heard that 
region named : he must therefore have felt certain that in Meath, as well as in 
Mayo where "the Wood" was situate, the story of that call, which rests on the 
Saint's own authority in the Con/essio, was known to everyone, — a further indica- 
tion, by the way (in addition to that noted in last page), of the wide circulation 
of that document in our author's day. Here it is worth while to point out, as 
indicative of the unsophisticated character of Tirechan' s work, how much 
more a trained writer might have made of the series of incidents apparently 
unconnected — the dream of the Saint's early years, in which the cry for 
help reached him from that remote spot — his arrival in Meath — the contested 
inheritance that drew Enda to Tara just when Patrick was baptizing a convert 
there — the random question that led the Chief to name his abode in the hearing 
of the Saint — showing how all these were so ordered as to combine and bring 
about the answer to that cry in the mission beyond the Shannon. But Tirechan 
is content to set down the facts, one by one, without linking them into their 
chain of sequence. As we have seen, he explains the reference to the Wood of 
Fochlath, not where it is first named (p. 20 a!), but in a later passage (p. 21 a) 
of his narrative ; after which explanation he turns back to the work in Meath, 


and interposes many details of it before he reaches the crossing of the Shannon. 
All this goes to establish — not necessarily the historical truth of these records, 
but — their character as ancient traditions ; some perhaps written, others oral ; 
current before our author wrote, among those to whom he wrote. It is plain that 
he did not invent them ; he merely collected them and put them into con- 
tinuous (though far from artistic) form. Perhaps he had received them (or some 
of them) in Irish, and reproduced them in such Latin as he had at command.^ 

(2) Of the matter common to our two authors, one source they themselves 
expressly indicate ; for, as we have seen, they both not only use but directly cite 
the Con/essio ; — Muirchu (it is to be observed) only for the earliest period of the 
Life, but Tirechan also for an incident in the preparations made in Meath for the 
mission across the Shannon.^ It is natural (we note in passing) that this writer — 
by birth a man of Mayo, but by ecclesiastical status belonging to Meath, and 
writing (as appears farther on) for men of Meath — should thus point out the Saint's 
own reference to this incident of his journey to Mayo from Meath, And it follows 
that the Con/essio was in the seventh century accessible to and read by students in 
places so little connected as Sletty and Ardbraccan, — a confirmation of what has 
been said above of Its early currency in that age. 

(3) Another source is, of course, in those local traditions of Meath which 
Tirechan assumes to be current there, and whence both writers, no doubt, derived 
the story of the events at Tara, which appears in both narratives. In substance 
the two agree, and to a large extent in the details ; but they differ in many 
points, and still more in manner of presentation — Tirechan' s account being of the 
two the fresher, rougher, and simpler, and free from the extravagant amplifi- 
cation of marvels, as well as the pretentious rhetoric, with which Muirchu sets 
forth his version. Thus, while the agreement is so close as to indicate a 
common origin, the variation is such as to show that they trace back to it 
by distinct and independent lines of transmission. To Muirchu, as has been 
shown, this tradition had probably come, through Aedh, in the shape in which 
it had been given, presumably in verse, by Fiacc to the Church of Sletty: 
Tirechan had acquired it in the country of its origin, directly or through Ultan 
of Ardbraccan, from the clerics of Meath, among whom it would naturally 
have been preserved more nearly in its primitive form. The difference is more 
than can be' accounted for by the different idiosyncrasies and literary habits 
of the two. men ; it is evidently due in no small measure to the remoteness 

' Dr. Bury {JS. H. R., Apr., 1902, pp. 248 et sqq.) has shown good reasons for his opinion that a written 
authority underlies Tirechan's narrative in some places (he points to the passages, p. 19 a, 1. 2i2, ; 5, 1. 5 ; 
30 a, 11. 23-29). Yet the use of the word :petra (p. 30 a, 1. 24), common to Tirechan with Muirchu {his), is 
hardly conclusive evidence of a common source ; for it is the usual equivalent of Uacc = 'flagstone,' and 
seems to be preferably used to designate a stone hallowed by sacred associations. 

2 For Muirchu, see su;pr., p. xx, and infr., p. 443 a. Again, for Tirechan, see p. 17 5, 1. 16, where "Ecce 
nauts tua Jiaraia" is cited from the C"o«/ejjw, p. 45 5, infr.{s. 17 [White]): see also p. 20 5, "ut in scrip. 
Hone sua adfirmat {Con/., s. 53 ; and cp. p. xlix, note ^). For the citation from the " Commemoratio 
laborum," see p. xliv, note ". It may well be that Tirechan, as Dr. Bury suggests {Guardian, ut su;pr., 
p. 1647), knew the Con/essio not in its integrity, but by extracts— included perhaps in the "liber" which 
he had firom Ultan. Muirchu's knowledge of it may have been similarly limited. 



of the common origin. The conclusion is thus reinforced that neither Tirechan, 
nor yet Muirchu, nor anyone of their time, invented the story; that both 
derived it from a common, but distant, source. In this way each confirms 
the other ; for their joint evidence proves that it is not a fiction of the seventh 
century, but a bona fide tradition, — and one which (whatever its historical value) 
was in their time already an old tradition. We can hardly place it later than 
the middle of the sixth century, and it may well be many years earlier. Muirchu' s 
elaborated story, with its studied scenic effects, and its profuseness of miracle, if 
it stood alone, might be open not unreasonably to suspicion as a mere fabric 
of hagiological fancy; but Tirechan's version of it impresses us as that of 
one who simply set down accurately what he heard, as he heard it, without 
any attempt to embellish or to amplify. 

(4) Again, Book i. is to be viewed in its prospective relation to Book 11. It 
has been shown above, in par. (i), that certain incidents in the former serve 
to lead to the Connaught narrative of the latter. It is farther to be noted that 
not merely that narrative, but the purpose of our author in compiling it, was 
present to his mind in this earlier moiety of his work. That purpose, as we 
shall presently see, is avowedly (p. 21 b) to assert the rights of the See of 
Armagh against those who opposed or encroached on them. And already, in 
Book I., we may note that he betrays his special reverence for that See. 
Though in it the action belongs entirely to the earliest stage of the Saint's 
mission — lying within its first year apparently — long before the Church of 
Armagh was founded, yet he points onward more than once to that Church and 
its privileges, and in such terms as to imply that its position among Patrick's 
foundations was unique. So (i) when he digresses (p. 18 «) to relate the call 
of Benignus, it is in order to introduce him as a future " successor Patricii in 
aeclessia Machae^ So again (ii), with the Saint's blessing on Conall, son of Niall 
(p. 19 <5), is recorded the accompanying claim that he and his "heirs" shall 
find protection from that prince and his descendants. And so, in a third 
instance (iii), our author discloses a personal fact to which doubtless are due 
his zeal for Patrick, and his ample information about Connaught, and especially 
Mayo. In relating the grant made by Enda, son of Amhalghaidh, "to Patrick's 
God and to Patrick," he adds (p. 20b): "Some say it is because of this 
[grant] that we are Patrick's servants to the present day." Hence we learn 
that in Tirechan's time there was in Tir Amhalghaidh (Tirawley, in North 
Mayo) an ecclesiastical foundation to which he himself belonged, which was 
subject to Patrick's See, and that some believed its subjection to have 
originated in Enda's grant to Patrick. We infer accordingly that in the 
seventh century the prerogative of Armagh was not only known and alleged, 
but in some parts of Ireland (Mayo at least, and probably Meath) admitted — 
though, it may be, not without question — as rightful. All these incidental notices 
tend to prepare for the method followed by our author in the following Book, and 
to reveal beforehand the aim of his whole work. 


CONTENTS OF THE MS.— continued. 

Part IV. TIRECHAN. Book II. 

Book i. ends (p. 21 b) with a brief subscription, informing us that it was com- 
piled "in the regions of the Hy-Neill" — that is, as the notes of place imply, of 
the Southern Hy-Neill, in Meath. 

To this corresponds the superscription {ib.) of Book 11., which immediately 
follows, describing it as compiled "in the regions of Connaught." In its opening 
sentences (which form a brief Introduction), the author, addressing his readers, 
implies that they are men of Meath. "For so far" (he says) "I have written of 
things known to you as having taken place in your country." Besides those 
matters of common knowledge, some materials for that former part of his work 
were supplied to him, he adds, "by many elders,"^ and by Bishop Ultan, who 
had educated him. But he intimates from the first that for the remaining part 
— though he writes for the same readers — his method will be more systematic 
(p. 22 «, '■^ quod restat stridius erit" as compared with the ^^ simplicia^^ of Book i.), 
and will have a definite and important aim — the vindication of the rights of the 
"■' Paruchia Pairicii'" (the sphere of the authority of the "Heir of Patrick"). 
For (he proceeds to complain) that sphere was invaded by those who hated and 
feared its prerogative, inasmuch as they were conscious that it extended right- 
fully to "wellnigh the whole island," in virtue of "the donation given by God 
to Patrick through His angel." Thus the "Heirs of Patrick," in Tirechan's 
view, claim less than their rights ; while their adversaries refuse to allow them 
even what they claim. 

But though systematic, his method is not controversial ; he simply compiles. 
In Book II., as in Book i., his references to Armagh are rare and incidental. 
Besides Benignus, whom he designates '■'■ heres (p. 20, b; as Book i., p. 18 a, 
successor) Patricu" he mentions but three other of the Saint's disciples as 
connected with that Church — Sachellus and Cethiacus (p. 17 a),^ and Medbu 
(p. 25 b). Now and then he complains of, or hints at, the encroachments of rival 
ecclesiastical centres — as of the ^'/amilia Columbae Cille,'" and the " /amilia 
Airdsratha^' (of Ardstraw), p. 22 b, and of the '■^familia Clono^'' (of Clonmacnoise), 

1 One story he expressly notes as derived from certain senes, who no doubt were among these "seniores" 
(p. 19 b). 

' See above, pp. xliii, xliv, for reasons why this passage is to be accepted as part of Book ii. 


p. 23 a? Once only he intimates that he has personally visited Armagh 
(p. 22 b, 11. 6, 7); and once only (if once) he implies that the Saint himself had 
sojourned there (p. 30a, 1. 31). "After leaving Machia^ [Patrick] he came 
to Mugdoirn, and ordained Victoricus to be Bishop of Machia [or, Victoricus of 
Machia to be Bishop], and founded there a great Church" — this being his last 
recorded act in the North, before he returned to Meath and thence proceeded 
southward. Apart from these passing notices, Book 11., though varied by digres- 
sions, some of considerable length, and few without interest, has in the main for 
its framework an itinerary of St. Patrick's mission after he first left Meath ; and 
its method of establishing the prerogative of the heirs of Patrick is simply to 
record, in orderly narrative, the results of that mission in the shape of the 
Churches he founded, and the clerics he placed in them, in its course. It 
suggests, but forbears to draw expressly, the inference that, inasmuch as Patrick 
founded all these Churches, and ordained, and placed in them, their first clergy, 
therefore the successors of these clergy in these Churches owe allegiance to the 
successor of Patrick in his peculiar See of Armagh. 

This inference, as we have seen, our author has already implied in Book i., in the case of the 
Church to which he himself belonged, in Tirawley. It may be that, in thus writing to the men of 
Meath, he means them to take the like lesson to themselves ; and as he has reminded them of the 
Patrician origin of their Churches, so he desires to intimate that they owe allegiance to the Patrician 
See. But probably he may have felt that in Meath no such lesson was needed : he writes as to men 
who sympathized with his zeal for that See, and were themselves unquestioningly loyal to it. 

But it is evidently at the expense of historical accuracy that Tirechan has 
made his narrative thus continuous in form. It can hardly be doubted that in it 
we have the results of two or more missionary journeys (he intimates farther on 
in this Book, before its close, p. 29 b, 1. 25, that there were three) thrown into 
the shape of the history of a single journey and its doings. So (as already 
noted, p. xlviii) the Meath records in Book i. of the doings of the Saint's first 
year must be, in some measure, anticipatory of after-events. But this neglect 
of the order of time belongs to the design which was in our author's mind all 
through, to construct — not a chronologically exact history of the conversion of 
Ireland to the Faith, but — such a summary of the work of Patrick, exhibited in 
one impressive whole, as should serve as a basis on which to rest the claims of 
supremacy advanced on the part of the '■'■ Paruchia Patricii." 

Yet, though this record of the Connaught mission is not to be read as a 
chronicle of events in the exact order of their occurrence, its arrangement is not 

' Cp. p. 18 5, where "■ Clono Autss" = Clones; p. 29 5, where "familia Clono" recurs, and also 
"familia Daminse" (Devenish, in Lough Erne). 

' It is unlikely that by "Machia" Armagh is meant. Dr. Bury {E, H. R., ut supr., p. 262) has 
well pointed out that " Machinensem" is not here " Ardmackanum," but rather = " Maginensem," i.e., 
" of Maigen,"— the Domnach Maigen of V. T., II., p. 182, now Donaghmoyne, which adjoins Cremorne 
(= Crich Mugdorna, cp. p. 30 a, 1. 32) in the Co. of Monaghan (see Reeves, Adamnan, p. 81, note ^). 
Hence it may be inferred that, similarly, Machia = Magia = Maigen. Tirechan calls the city Mache, 
Machae, Arddmachae, Arddmache — never Machia. See farther, p. Iviii; and for Muirchu's usage, 
pp. 12 b, 15 a. See also p. xxxviii, note ^. 


without method, but has a geographical framework. The places named in it 
which can be identified with certainty suffice to determine the general lines of 
the Saint's journeyings. At the close of Book i. his route from Meath leads him 
across the Inny (p. 21 a, '^ Ethne'"\ by Granard {" Graneret"), leaving him on 
the east bank of the Shannon, in the ^^ Campus Rein'''' {Magh Rein, a name which 
survives in that of Lough Rinn) — that is, through western Longford and southern 
Leitrim. The narrative of Book 11. begins (p. 22 a, lines 4-6) with his crossing 
that river {"per alueum Sinnae'") to the '' Camptis Ai" — a district in the plain 
country on its west bank, on the east side of what is now the county of Ros- 
common — where he encounters, but defeats by prayer, the opposition of two 
"Magi," the foster-fathers of King Laeghaire's two daughters, who shortly after 
appear in the story. Passing thence to the " Camptis Glaiss" (Moyglass), he 
founds in it the " Cellola Magna" (Kilmore),^ and proceeds to " Imbliuch Hornon" 
{lege " Honon"~\ {id., 11. 28-36), where is the well oi " Ailfind'" {b, 11. 8, 29), now 
Elphin, a small town of Roscommon, still a Bishop's see, giving its name to the 
diocese which is nearly conterminous with the county. 

"Honon" is genitive of " Hono" (p. zza, 1. 34), the name of one of the two brother-wizards whom 
the Saint met after leaving Magh-Glais (Dr. Bury in Proc. R. I. A., vol. xxiv (C), Pt. 3, p. 161). The 
Snavih-da-En (= " Vadum duarum auiumP p. 22, 1. 5) at which he crossed cannot have been the ford 
so called by later authorities, which is too far south, and quite out of the line of route indicated : it 
is to be sought, as Dr. Bury has shown {ib., pp. 158 et sqq.), where the overflow of the Shannon makes 
the twin lakes of Bofin and Boderg.^ Here lies the plain Moyglass, through which is the way west- 
ward across Roscommon to the remoter points whither he was bound. Of these, one, Croagh Patrick 
(see p. 20 b, 1. 33), lies nearly due west from Elphin; the other, the Wood of Fochlath, near Killala 
(see p. Ivii), to the north-west, on the northern coast of Connaught — both in Mayo. It is to Croagh 
Patrick that our author makes him first direct his course. — But here the suggestion recurs, that in this 
he is not so much representing the actual facts of the Saint's progress, as rather laying down a line 
to serve for the convenient enumeration of the Patrician foundations in Connaught. It is evident that 
those he here records are far too numerous to be the result of one circuit, within the limits (as is 
implied) of one year. The passage in p. 29^, above referred to, intimates that Patrick made three 
such circuits in the West ; and (as will presently be shown, pp. Ix et sqq.) there are indications in the 
narrative that this was not the first of the three. 

Apart from this consideration, it is apparent that our author, in his desire to set forth the extent 
of the Paruchia of Patrick, as defined by the range of his labours, has allowed the original aim of 
the Connaught journey, as laid down in p. 21 a, to pass out of sight, and has failed to tell how the 
second Easter was kept at the " Wood of Fochlath," as the first had been at Tara. Muirchu would 
have seized on such an occasion for the exercise of his artificial method of narrative, and would have 
hurried on to the scene of his arrival at Enda's abode, the celebration of the great Christian festival, 
and the discomfiture of the wizards. Tirechan is content, with his practical object steadily kept in 
view, not only, as we have seen in Book i., to interpose a record of missionary travels and foundations 
even before the crossing of the Shannon, but also, as we now find in Book 11., a much longer one 
before the fast on Croagh Patrick (p. 26 a), and yet a third between it and the crossing of the Moy 
{"■Muada," p. 28 a) into the region of the sons of Amhalghaidh, and the response to the call of the 
children of the Wood of Fochlath. 

' Kilmore is the border parish at the point indicated for the crossing. The parish of Kilglass adjoins it 
on the south. Each parish contains a townland named Moyglass. The Magh-Glais of Tirechan apparently 
included both. 

'^ I.e. the lakes of 'the White Cow* and 'the Red Cow.' Hence Dr. Bury suggests the ford may 
have been named " Snamk-da-Bo" (= Vadum duarum uaccarum. [or bourn., for which " auium." may be 
a misreading]). 



Thus, of the earlier stages of the journey through Roscommon, the main 
points are clearly identifiable, and may safely be accepted as laid down by our 
author.^ From Elphin (p. 22 b) and the neighbouring Shankill {" Senella Cella"\^ 
it passes to Rathcrochan (p. 23 «), a few miles to the south-west, the scene of the 
beautiful episode — which, even under its prosaic Latin dress, reveals its original 
form as a legend embodied in verse — of the conversion and early euthanasia of 
the two daughters of King Laeghaire. Thence, the next stage is Ardlicce, where 
the Saint founded a Church for his deacon " Coeman'" (p. 24 a, 1. 24), probably 
Kilkeevan, a few miles farther west ; near to which is '■'■Basilica''' (Baslick), 
where he placed another of his followers (pp. 23 ^, 1. 17 ; 24 a, 1. 39). After this 
comes (in the narrative as exhibited in our ms.) his encampment " in cacuminibus 
Selc(2" — an unidentified place — with a large company, whose names are recorded 
(p. 24 b). One of these names {"Sachellus") proves, as above shown (p. xliii), that 
here, before the arrival at Selcse, is to be inserted the stray passage now standing 
in p. 1 7 a ; for in it is related the story of this Sachellus, whom Patrick met with 
and baptized in the course of an excursion from Magh Airthic (the part of Western 
Roscommon which lies due north of Kilkeevan) " ad Drummui Cerrigi" and 
'^ad Nairniu'" (in East Mayo).' After that episode follows the sojourn at Selcae, 
and a progress further north, to the '' frames GregirgV (the region of the Gre- 
graidhi, about Lough Gara, in the barony of Coolavin, county of Sligo). Thence 
(our author tells us) "he returned to Magh Airthic" (p. 25 a\ This expression is 
notable — ( i ) because (as above noted) it implies that his presence in that district 
had been previously mentioned, thus confirming our restoration of the Sachellus 
narrative (of p. 17 a;) to its place in the history; and (2) because it proves that 
Tirechan conceives the Saint's journey, not as a steady progress westward to 
its destination, but as one admitting of occasional divagations, now and then 
returning on itself.* And accordingly he here represents that the Saint, after 
making many excursions in divergent directions from a centre in Magh Airthic, 
finally made it his starting-point for his main mission to the farther West. From 
it he reenters the districts of Costello and Clanmorris {^' Drummut Cerrigi," 
'■'■Diserta Cerrigi," '■'■Campus nAirniu," p. 25 a and b), and proceeds thence 
through what are now the baronies of Kilmaine {" Conmaicne," " Cul Tolit," 
p. 25 (5), and cf Carra {^'■Campus Caeri,''' p. 26 a), and thence reaches that of 
Murrisk {" Muiriscc Aigli"), in which are situate Aghagower {"Achad Fobuir"), 
where he founded a See, and Croagh Patrick, the scene of his forty days' fast, 
" after the example of Moses and of Elias and of Christ" (p. 26 a). 

After this the route is traced discursively, reverting to Roscommon after 

' An exception is the crossing of the "Mons filiorum Atlello," and founding of the Church at Tawnagh 
(" Tamnach," p. 22 b, line 40) ; for it seems certain that this passage relates to Patrick, and not (as at first 
sight might be understood) to Mathona. See p. 29 b, 11. 17-19 ; also p. Ivii, note '; and cp. V. T., 11., p. 98. 

^ This identification is perhaps uncertain ; see p. Ix, and Supplemental Note subjoined. 

3 See p. Ixiv, supr. 

* Possibly it is for this reason that we find " reueriebaiur" (imperf.), p. 25 a, 1. 14. 

^ The "Albus Campus " (= Ma£-/i Finn), in the regions of the " nepoies maim" [Hy-Many) of p. 29 b, 
is in southernmost Roscommon (O' Donovan, The Hy-Many, p. 77). 


touching sundry places in central Mayo, with some additions of marvellous 
incident (pp. 26 b, 27), until (prefixing the words Redeamus ad historiam nostrum, 
p. 27 by our author makes him pass (evidently from the east) over the Moy ("/er 
Miiadam"\ and reach at last the Wood of Fochlath, the place whence, in the 
vision so often referred to, the voices came that called him : " Come, and walk 
among us." Here, after an encounter with the powers of heathendom, terminated 
as before at Tara by the miraculous infliction of death on the chief wizard (p. 28 «), 
there follow the baptism of many {ib., b\ the foundation of a Church, apparently 
that of Killala which lies on the west side of the estuary of the Moy {Cell Alaidh ; 
cp. V. 71, II., p. 134), and the ordination of a bishop whose bones were treasured 
there in Tirechan's time. Another foundation in the neighbourhood is identifi- 
able — " Foirrgea," now Farragh (p. 28 b). Afterwards the Saint passes eastward, 
recrossing the Moy at the islet of Bertragh {" de Vertrige in Bertrigam" p. 29 a); 
is with Bronus in Murrisk^ [" Muiresca^^), and with him traverses the "Jines IraV 
{ib., 1: 10), of which the name survives in the barony of Tireragh, — as also the 
name of Bronus in the parish of Killaspugbrone (" G7/-£a5/i«?^^-^rom " = Bishop 
Brone's Church), close to the east side of the town and river of Sligo {^^flumen 
Slidchae,^' ib., 1. 17).^ On the other side lies Calry (the " Callrigi," 1. 20), through 
which he proceeds on his way to Drumlease {" Druim Leas," 1. 21), in the county 
of Leitrim. His crossing of the Duff (" Flumen Nigrum") which divides Leitrim 
from Sligo, and the Drowess ("Flumen Drobaisco") which divides it from Donegal 
(ib., 11. 28-30), and finally the Erne "between JSs ruaid (Assaroe) and the sea," 
enables us to trace his course out of Connaught north-eastward into Ulster. Of 
the success of his preaching in these parts, Tirechan's records are scanty, — 
perhaps because there was but little to tell, or perhaps because his knowledge of 
details, and his interest in them, grew less as he leaves the regions in which was 
his own abode, and enters a region where the dominant influence was that of the 
"/amilia of Colom Cille," which he regarded (p. 22 b) as an intruder on the rights 
of the "paruckia Palricii." Moreover, the more recent fame of the Donegal-born 
Saint may naturally, in our author's time, have somewhat obscured the traditions 
of the original Apostle and his mission. But the route Patrick followed is, in its 
main points, sufficiently determined, from Assaroe (near Ballyshannon) north- 
eastward through the pass of Barnesmore ("Ber7zas of the Hy-Conall," p. 29 b, 
1. 16); then hy Ardstraw* ("Ardd sratko," 1. 28) in Tyrone, near Newtown Stewart ; 
until he crossed the Bann ("Banda," 1. 31) at Coleraine i^' Cul Raithin" 1. 32), 
and the Bush ['^Buas," 1. 34) to Dunseverick {"Dun Sebuirgi," 1. 35), near Portrush. 

1 These words (see p. Ix, in/r.) are to be read immediately before "Per Muadam uero uemi" (1. 6). 

2 To be distinguished from the Murrisk of West Mayo, p. 26 b. 

3 Here is reinserted the crossing of " the mountain of the Hy-Ailella," and the founding of the Church 
of " Tamnach" with "Cell Senchuce" (Tawnagh and Shancough) and others. This mountain range is 
apparently the Bralieve Hills (Dr. Bury in Proc. R.I. A., ut su;pr., p. 165) in Tirerrill (= Tir Ailella), the 
easternmost barony of Sligo, which we met with before in p. 22 b, 1. 41. See Su;ppleinental Note, p. Ixi. 

* In p. 29 b, the text is much confused. Among other things, the statement that the Saint crossed the 
Shannon thrice, and spent in all seven years in the West, is inserted in the middle of this progress through 
Tyrone. See above, p. xlvi, note'. 



Here he has reached what is now the County of Antrim, and here he "founded 
many Churches, which the Coindiri hold" (p. 30 a, 1. 2) — a name still sur- 
viving in that of the diocese of Connor, which nearly coincides with that county. 
Here, accordingly, Tirechan makes the Saint visit Slemish and Skerry, the scenes 
of his bondage and of his angelic vision. Of these, his account varies both 
by omission and addition from that of Muirchu, though the two apparently have 
a common original.^ But of the earlier visit to these scenes, and of the whole 
Down episode in his course, as related by Muirchu, Tirechan knows nothing. 
The rest of the route lies southward : it recrosses the Bann by Toombridge 
{'■^Doim,'" ib., 1. 29) into Tyrone. Thence, at first sight we seem to learn that 
it led him to Armagh; for, after the return to Tyrone, we read " relida Machia 
uenit in MaugdornuT 

But it is hardly credible (as above noted, p. liv, note^) that Tirechan could be content thus 
indirectly to imply a visit to Armagh in these two words, without relating, here or elsewhere, any 
particulars of the Saint's sojourn there, or even noting the fact of his arrival in the place which was 
to be his special See. By Machia we are probably to understand Domhnach Maigen (Donaghmoyne, 
in Monaghan), — not Mache or Arddmachae. 

Thus "having completed the circuit" (ib., 1. 36), Patrick returned to Meath, 
where he founded two more Churches. After this follows a bare and very brief 
summary of a journey southward to Leinster [ib., 1. 40), where {ib., 11. 2—7) 
he founded a few Churches, Drummurraghill, Kilcullen, Sletty (" Druimm 
Urchaile," ''■ Cellola Cuilinn," " Slebti"), in Kildare ("the plain of the Liffey") 
and the country to the south of it ; ordained a few clergy, two of whom are of 
note — Iserninus, and Fiacc of Sletty; and baptized "the sons of Dunlaing," 
the hereditary foes of Laeghaire and the sons of Niall (above, p. xlviii). 
Finally, he passed into Munster {" Tir Mumae"), and "baptized the King's 
sons on the Stone of Cothraige^ in Cashel" {ib., 11, 9, 10). 

At this point the narrative breaks off abruptly — unfinished, as it appears ; — 
yet at a point of cardinal Importance, and with an incident of high significance ; 
for Cashel was the royal capital of Munster, and ultimately its ecclesiastical 
metropolis. Why Tirechan did not complete his annals by relating St. Patrick's 
work in the Southern province we are left to guess. He may not have lived long 
enough to carry out his plan ; or may have been unable to collect materials for it 
in regions which were not familiar to him, as were Meath and Mayo. Or such 
materials as he found may have proved to yield no evidence favourable — or, pos- 
sibly, evidence adverse— ^to the supremacy of the " Paruchia Patricii^'' which was 
the thesis he sought to establish by his work. The Munster traditions may have 
given indications of the existence of Christian Churches in Southern Ireland 
prior to, and therefore independent of, the evangelic labours of St. Patrick. 

' See Dr. Bury, E.H.R., ut supr., pp. 248, 249. The use in this place of the Saint's earlier name, 
^' Succeius" (for which see p. i"] b, I.7), is a notable fact, and seems to point to an early source for this 
version of the story. 

^ For " petram hicoithrigi" read "Jieiram coithrigi." See iot Coithrigi, p. xxxi, su^r.; and for 
;petra, p. li, note ^ 


When we look back on this "circuit," as laid down by our author, the 
question recurs for us (see above, p. liv) — Are we to receive it as an authentic 
history of an actual journey made by St. Patrick, and of its incidents in their 
order as they occurred ? Or is it rather to be regarded as a mere summary of 
places visited, conversions effected, and Churches founded, in the course of 
repeated journeys, extending probably over several years, thrown by Tirechan, 
for the purpose of his narrative, into the form of a continuous itinerary of a 
single missionary tour in Western and Northern Ireland ? 

The answer can hardly be doubtful : the former alternative may be rejected 
without hesitation. 

In the first place, no record of the journey or journeys contemporaneous with 
the events, and therefore of primary authority, can have been in Tirechan' s 
hands ; for had any such been known to him, he would not have neglected to cite 
it as the basis of his account, as he has (p. 17 (5) referred to Patrick's own writings, 
and to the '■'■liber apud Ulianum." And, again, no adequate material for con- 
structing a detailed itinerary, exhibiting his movements in their actual order, 
could have been forthcoming in the traditions of the several Patrician Churches. 
Each such Church would, no doubt, preserve, and glory in, the memory of its 
Apostolic Founder ; but it is utterly improbable that any Church, so founded, 
would also retain any knowledge of the course of his journeyings, of the route he 
took, of the place he came from, or the place he went to, before and after its 
foundation. Nor would it come within his scope to seek for such material. His 
object was, to set forth the extent of the " Paruchia PatriciV ; and for that it was 
necessary and sufficient that he should collect the records of all Patrician founda- 
tions within the regions he treats of: — the order in which they were founded, and 
the route pursued by their founder, were for him irrelevant matters. Thus we 
may safely assume that this seeming itinerary of a missionary journey made by 
the Saint, is really little more than a form into which our author has, for his own 
convenience, arranged the traditions which support the conclusion he had in 
view — that Patrick founded the Churches named, and gave each of them its first 
bishop. In some parts of the narrative the course laid down is distinct, and 
probable enough, — as in that which lies in Roscommon, from the crossing of the 
Shannon to the founding of Kilkeevan (pp. 22 « to 24 a) ; or, again, in that from 
the recrossing of the Moy, eastward and northward into Ulster' (p. 30 a). But 
all that intervenes between the forty days on Croagh Patrick and the visit to 
Tirawley (pp. 26 b—2% a) is an irregular collection of incidents of a peregri- 
nation in Mayo, including some (p. 27) which belong to Roscommon^; whence 
we are abruptly brought to the crossing of the Moy (p. 28 a, 1. 6), from its 
east side into the country of the sons of Amhalghaidh, for the long-deferred 
arrival at the Wood of Fochlath. Here the lack of continuity betrays itself : 

' Here the route seems to be a real itinerary, being indicated less by the position of Churches founded 
than by that of the rivers crossed,— the Moy, the Sligo, the Duff, the Drowess, the ford of the Erne (Assaroe). 
' See p. Ivi, note '. 


"the suture" (in Dr. Bury's phrase) "is visible.'" The visit to Tirawley 
evidently disconnects itself from the foregoing records of the Churches of 
Roscommon and of the districts of Mayo that adjoin Croagh Patrick, and 
stands apart as belonging to a distinct series of events. Evidently the sentence, 
Redeamus ad historiam nostrum, so unmeaningly inserted (p. 27 (5) in the legend 
related just before the paragraph which opens the account of the Tirawley visit, 
is to be transferred to the end of that legend (p. 28 a, 1. 6), and gives an indica- 
tion that our author is conscious of having digressed, and is here resuming his 
dropped thread. Thus, the view already suggested (p. Iv) presents itself with 
augmented force, that, in crossing the Moy westward, as here recorded, Patrick 
enters on the fulfilment of the cherished purpose that grew out of the dream of 
his earlier years, and of his agreement with Enda, taking shape in an evangelic 
mission to Enda's people. If this be so, we are led to accept also the conjecture 
that this mission, though placed by our author with the Saint's other work in 
Mayo, after his work in Roscommon, may have been prior to it in time. This 
is what we are led to expect in the Tara narrative, which lays it down (p. 2 1 a) as 
the guiding purpose of his missionary route to reach the Wood of Fochlath in time 
to keep his second Easter there. Indeed, we have still better proof — the highest 
possible — of the urgency of the Saint's desire to attain to this foreseen goal of his 
journey — in his own words where, in his Con/essio (p. 46 b, infr. ; White, s. 23), 
he relates the appeal that came to him thence in his vision, and thanks God that 
he has been enabled to respond to the call and accomplish the task. Our author, 
leaving out of view this purpose and its fulfilment, has interposed a summary 
of work done in Meath (p. 21), as well as a much ampler one of that in 
Roscommon and Mayo (pp. 22 «— 28 a), before that goal is reached, and the 
Tirawley mission opened, — to which, at this point, he reverts.^ 

Three Connaught missions are implied in the three crossings of the Shannon and the seven years 
spent by Patrick in the West, which our author reckons (farther on, in a passage which has evidently 
strayed (as above noted, p. Ivii) from its place, and got into a strange context in the account of an 
Ulster journey, p. 29 h, line 25). It is probable that the records of these three journeys have here been 
combined by him into one : and of the cord which he has rather imperfectly wrought, it may be 
possible to distinguish in some measure the three strands, somewhat as follows : — (1) A crossing of 
the Shannon (possibly of its upper waters, further north than the crossing of p. 22 a) in company 
with Enda ; a journey through the region of the sons of Ailill {Tirerrill, in eastern Sligo), in 
which he founded Shancough and Tawnagh {" Senchua''' and " Tamnach," p. 29 a; cp. p. 22 b, and 
see above, p. Ivii), and thence passed westward over the Moy to the work that awaited him among 
Enda's people, whose spiritual needs had appealed to him in the oft-recorded vision of his youth ; 
(2) the crossing related in p. 22 a, with the Roscommon and Mayo journey, including the fast on 
Croagh Patrick (p. 26) ; (3) a circuit of Connaught, in which Patrick no doubt revisited the Churches 
founded in his previous visits and founded others, ending probably with Tirawley; from whence 
he crossed the Moy eastward (p. 30 a) into Sligo, passing over the Sligo, DufF, Drowess, and Erne 
rivers, through Leitrim into Donegal ; then began his one recorded peregrination of Ulster, whence, 
"finito circulo," he returned to Tara and proceeded southwards. For a fuller examination of the 
structure of the narrative of Book 11., see Supplemental Note subjoined. 

1 Proc. H. I. A., p. 167, ut suj>r. See farther, Supplemental Note, p. Ixiii. 

2 The preceding paragraph follows in great measure the lines of Dr. Bury's memoir in Proc. R.I. A., 
referred to in last note. 


Supplemental Note to Chapter V. 
St, Patricks Journeys in Connaught. 

In Book I., Patrick's primary aim in proceeding westward is represented to be, to reach before 
Easter the territory of Enda (in north Connaught) under whose protection he was to travel. But, as 
we have seen, throughout the earlier and much longer part (pp. 22-27) of Book 11., Tirechan lets this 
aim pass out of sight. There is not a word of Enda's country, or of his companionship in the 
journey; and its direction is due westward, across Roscommon, through Mayo to Murrisk, — not to 
Tirawley, northward. 

This route, however, though laid down with sufficient general definiteness, is more than once 
interrupted. And the most notable interruptions have this in common, that they introduce incidents 
in the region, or persons of the race, of the Hy-Ailella, who have left their name to Tirerrill, the 
easternmost barony of Sligo (which county lies north and north-west of Roscommon). The instances 
of this appear under the following heads : — 

{a) Immediately after crossing the Shannon, we read that Patrick ordained Ailbe {'^ Ailbeum," 
p. 22a; cp. p. 18^, sub-c. 2) who "was of the Hy-Ailella." To him "he indicated an admirable 
altar of stone in the mountain of the Hy-Ailella " (the Bralieve Hills in Tirerrill on the east border 
of Sligo ; see above, p. Ivii, n. '). In V.I., 11., p. 94, Ailbe is described as "iSenchoi," — i.e., in 
Shancough of Tirerrill, a parish which includes these hills. There is no hint that Patrick's knowledge 
of this altar was other than natural ; and the inference is therefore inevitable that he had been in 
Tirerrill before the crossing of the Shannon related in p. 22 a. 

{b) Soon after this, the narrative takes him to Elphin, and thence to " Dumecha of the Hy-Ailella" 
(p. 22 i), where he founds a Church called " Senella Cella" {Senchell, in V. T., 11., p. 98), and places 
in it "Macet" and '^ Cetgen" and "Rodan." Above (p. Ivi), this Church has been identified with 
Shankill, which adjoins Elphin. But on referring to the list (p. 1 8 3) of clerics ordained by Patrick, 
we meet (sub-c. 3) with two persons named Rodan, with a note attached to the second of them, that 
he "founded the ecdesiam Senem nepotum Aihllo, which monks of Patrick occupied." This may be 
Shancough, which we shall see (under head («) ) was a Patrician foundation, associated with Tawnagh 
(to be dealt with under head (f)). If the "Senella Cella Dumiche" here described as "of the Hy- 
Ailella," is Shankill in Roscommon, their territory must, in Patrick's time, have extended south of its 
later limits.^ It may be, either, that our author here speaks of a Senchell Dumiche in Tirerrill, distinct 
from the Shankill referred to at p. Ivi ; or, that he has mistaken his authority, and confused Senchell 
(= Shankill) of Roscommon with Senchua (= Shancough) of Sligo. — Or we may conjecture that for 
^^ Senella" (an unexampled form of diminutive) Senchua ought to be read. 

(c) In a paragraph immediately after that which has been treated of in (3), and continuous with it 
[zzb, 1.36, 23a), we read of Mathona, who joined Patrick and Rodan (at Senchell apparently), and 
received the veil from them. In the account of this woman occurs the sentence, "Exiit per montem 
filiorum Ailello, et plantauit ecdesiam liberam hiTamnuch," which at first sight seems to relate to her. 
But as it recurs, almost verbatim, in p. 29 a (see under head («)) with Patrick as its subject, it is safe to 
infer that here also (as in the parallel narrative of V. T., 11., p. 98) he is the person who, after founding 
Senchell, went " through the mountain of the Hy-Ailella," and there founded Tawnagh, and placed in 
it Cairell as Bishop. Even if the territory of the Hy-Ailella reached southward into Roscommon, the 
" mountain " is certainly (as Tawnagh is) in Sligo. And the close juxtaposition of the two 
foundations strengthens the conclusion above pojnted to, — that Senchell of (3) is not Shankill, but 

{d) Incidentally we learn that several persons associated with Patrick, — "Cethiacus" (p. 24. a), his 

^ In V. T., II., p. 94, the country of the Hy-Ailella is said to adjoin that of Corcu-Ochland, in which 
Elphin was situated. But Tirechan merely says that certain "magi" of that country were "of the race 
(not 'of the region'^ of Corcuckonluain." 




brother " Benignus" {ib., b), and therefore another brother " Mucneus" (p. 28 a), and also " Felarius 
and his sisters " {I'b., and 25 b), were of the Hy-Ailella.^ Most of these seem to have joined him in the 
earliest stages of the Connaught journey of pp. 22-26. And this fact of itself suggests that there was 
some relation between him and that family, and their country, prior to that journey. 

{e) Later in the narrative (p. 29 a) we meet with the distinct account, above referred to under (c), of 
a journey made by Patrick through Tirerrill, definitely assigned to its place in his route as laid down 
by our author. After the journeys in Roscommon and Mayo, ending with the sojourn in Tirawley 
(p. 28), the route is made to turn westward through Sligo (p. 29 a): it crosses the "mountain of the 
Hy-Ailella," where the Saint founds four Churches, of which "Tamnack" is the first, and " Ce/i 
Senchuae" the last. Tirechan is here giving, as it seems, another version of the Saint's journey and 
his foundations in Tirerrill, — unmindful that, as we have seen under (b) and (c), he has already 
recorded them in a slightly different form at an earlier period of his history (p. 22 b). There they 
appear as a digression from the first stage of Patrick's westward course through Roscommon : here 
they belong to his regular eastward journey, in the latest stage of his work in Connaught, on his way 
thence into Ulster." But it is observable that even here the account does not fit very well into the 
place where it is introduced into the route. The line indicated in what follows, the crossing of the 
Dufi^ and the Drowess, has a more northerly direction ; — as is also shown in the parallel narrative of 
V. T., II. (pp. 136-146), where there is no hint of a visit to Tirerrill in the course of the journey 
from Connaught to Ulster. 

Looking back over the passages above examined (in (a), {b), (/), and («)), we perceive : — 

(i) That every one of them more or less interrupts the general narrative, so as to raise a difficulty 
in tracing the route. 

(2) That they all are in some measure connected inter se, as relating to the founding of the 
Churches of Senchua (probably) and Tamnach ; — so as to suggest the idea that they may all have 
originally formed part of one and the same tradition — an account written or oral — distinct from those 
which furnished Tirechan with the material for the main body of his Connaught narrative.' 

Of the existence of such a tradition we have direct evidence in a subsequent document, included 
in our MS., — the collection of brief notes (pp. 36 b, ^j), apparently memoranda of material for literary 
use, — treated of in the next Chapter. These memoranda, as will there be shown (p. Ixxiv), are 
disposed in groups (distinguished by interspaces, or by marginal marks), according to the regions to 
which they relate, and therefore presumably according to the sources whence they have been derived. 
The first of these groups (p. 363, 1. 18) supplies the evidence required: it is very brief, but is 
separated by a wide space from those that come after it. It runs as follows* : — 

d. g. Ailbe iSenchui . altare . . . Machet Cetchen 

Roddn Mathona . . 

Of these two lines the only possible explanation is, that they are a memorandum of a tradition 
(written or other) which combined in continuous form the substance of the passages of Tirechan ir., 

1 For a full restoration of the partly obliterated passages in pp. 24, 25, see Appendix B. 

" Accordingly, he here places the foundation of Tawnagh before that of Shancough, which lies eastern- 
most, reversing the order of the former version. And he writes ecclesiam (singular), though four Churches 
are named. Both these facts are explained by the supposition that he is here merely repeating the account 
previously given (see head (c)) in p. 22 b, in which Tawnagh alone is named. 

' As a farther sign of the connexion among these passages, note that Bronus, who appears in the 
passages {a) and (c), is found to be with Patrick in Sligo in the narrative just before the passage {e). 

'■ The letters "d.g." set in the margin over against this entry, have been explained by Bishop Reeves 
and others as standing for "Duma Ch-atd" {V.T., 11., p. 94 — the " tumulus Gradi" of p. 22 a). But the 
explanation is not a probable one. Nowhere else in these memoranda are place-names represented by mere 
initials. Besides, the place has not been identified with certainty, and no safe inference can be drawn 
from Ailbe's connexion with it. It certainly lay close to Patrick's landing-place on the west side of the 
Shannon, in Roscommon; but the narrative conveys — not that it was Ailbe's abode, but — merely that he met 
Patrick there, and was there ordained by him. 

It is not certain, however, that the letters ^'d.g." represent words; — they may be merely notes of 
reference to some authority not now traceable. So "•«•" is set on the margin beside the first line of 
the following group, and " -b- " over it, and in like manner "c" beside the first line of next page {37 a). 


treated of above; — of (a) {"Ailbeus" " altare"), of (3) {" Macet, Cetgen, Rodanm"), and of {c) 
(" Rodanus," " Maikona"). The passage of V. y. (ii., p. 94) which is parallel to the (a)-passage, 
supplies the " iSenchui" of the memorandum. In Tirechan it is expressed by " in monie nepoium 
Ailella," which, as above shown (in {a)), means the same place. 

It is reasonable to infer that the tradition condensed into this memorandum was known to 
Tirechan ; that he endeavoured to work it into his history by breaking it up into pieces, and inserting 
them where he judged best — but with the ill-success which manifests itself in the interruptions and 
incoherences of the route he tries to trace, which have resulted from the attempt. The repetition in 
p. 29 a of almost the actual words used in p. 22 b, is a farther and final token of his failure to make 
his narrative, thus interpolated, consistent with itself. The parallel narrative of V. T., 11. (pp. 1 36-146), 
does not support Tirechan (as noted above, under («)) in re-introducing Tawnagh, or Shancough, or 
any place in Tirerrill at this stage ; though, on the whole, it here follows him rather closely in 
the general line of the journey from Connaught to Ulster. So likewise, in the memoranda of p. 36 3 : 
the second group gives the heads of the account of that journey as told in Tirechan 11., coinciding 
even more closely with the narrative of V. T. ; but this group is (as above noted) distinguished by a 
wide interspace from the first, and contains no note (nor is any to be found in the rest of these 
memoranda) of anything relating to the race or the country of the Hy-Ailella. The record which is 
abridged in the first group stands alone, apart from all that follows. 

This record, as we have seen (under heads {a) and id) ), appears to relate to a journey prior in time 
to that from the ford of the Shannon through Roscommon. It may be with probability supposed to 
embody a tradition which made Patrick first enter Connaught by a more northerly route than that of 
Tirechan 11., — over the Tirerrill mountains into Sligo. Thus Ailbe and the Church of Shancough, and 
(next in order) Rodan and the Church of Tawnagh, would belong to an earlier stage of the Connaught 
mission, — prior to that which lay in the line from Moyglass through Elphin to Croagh Patrick, — 
which Tirechan regarded as the first stage, and into which he has introduced such incidents as 
were known to him of the stage which was really the first. On this hypothesis it will follow that the 
route through Sligo led westward into Tirawley, as recorded (but placed too late) in Tirechan 11., 
p. 28 a. Thus we shall have an explanation of Tirechan's statement in that place — unintelligible 
under his arrangement of the Saint's course — that Patrick entered Tirawley by crossing the Moy. 
Except the country of the Hy-Ailella, every place mentioned by our author as visited by Patrick 
between his entrance into Connaught and his arrival in Tirawley, lies clear of the course of the Moy, 
south or west of it : from none of them could he have found a way to Tirawley which should cross 
that river. He must have crossed it from Sligo ; and the indications combine to make it probable 
that he crossed it, in fulfilment of his primary purpose of reaching the Wood of Fochlath, in a 
journey with Enda, previous to the journey across Mayo due west to Croagh Patrick, which Tirechan, 
in Book 11., relates (pp. 22-26) as the first stage of the Connaught mission. 

H 2 


CONTENTS OF THE MS.— continued. 


In the preceding Chapter it has been assumed that, as Dr. Bury has conclusively 
shown {E.H.R., ut supr., p, 237), the Memoirs of Tirechan close (abruptly, yet 
with a certain propriety) with the name of Caskel (p. 30 b, 1. 10). After this, but 
with a blank space interposed, sufficient to mark the introduction of matter, 
from some other source or sources, follow several paragraphs, filling the rest 
of the page and the first column of the next (p. 31a); which need to be treated 
of separately. 

The Jirsi of these paragraphs (a) records the "Three Petitions of Patrick." 
Dr. Bury [ut supr.)')i\z.& pointed out that this cannot be reckoned as part of Tirechan' s 
compilation, both because of its unsuitability as a close to the book, and because 
of the indication given by the interspace above noted, — the like of which nowhere 
occurs in the text of the narrative, — not even at the point of the well-marked 
division between Books i. and 11. We may go farther, and say that, on the other 
hand, it cannot well be regarded as due to Ferdomnach, the scribe of our MS. ; 
inasmuch as these "Petitions" are quite distinct from the "Four Petitions" 
which he had previously met with in transcribing Muirchu's Second Book 
(p. 15). The paragraph is therefore most probably an entry (made by some 
unknown hand) which our scribe found at the end of the exemplar whence he 
copied Tirechan's work, and which he retained as he found it for the sake of its 
testimony to the Saint's love for Ireland. 

But the five paragraphs which follow — after a second, though narrower, inter- 
space — are on a different footing. They are — {b) the "Age of Patrick"; [c) the 
" Three things in which he was like Moses"; [d) His Date and Mission ; {e) His 
due of " Fourfold Honour"; (/) Summary in conclusion. 

As regards the last of these (/), Dr. Bury {ut supr.) has proved beyond 
question that it is no part of Tirechan's work. For it is a summary of certain 
headsj not of Tirechan only, but of Muirchu also. Hence it follows that, there 
being no reason to imagine that Ferdomnach found Muirchu and Tirechan in 


one and the same exemplar, it must have been drawn up by him and here 
inserted, after the two works which he has conjoined in our ms., as a sort of 
Table of Contents of both. 

Turning back to the intervening paragraphs, we find like traces of Ferdomnach's 

In the chronological note (<$), these traces manifest themselves when a similar, 
though briefer, note — the second of those appended (p. i6<5) to Muirchu ii. — 
is compared with it. There is an obvious relation between the two : this is an 
attempt to rewrite the other into harmony with the figures given by Muirchu 
(pp. 15^, 1. 10; \tb, 1. 9), and by Tirechan (p. 17^), which are founded on the 
statements of Patrick himself (Gjw/C, pp. 43 a, 45 b, in/r.y 

Both these appended chronological statements place as first head the Saint's baptism (in which 
alone they agree, but of which the Confession says nothing) ; both proceed under exactly the same 
four heads, " captus" " seruiuit," " legit," " docuit"), and subjoin a total of the figures relating to each 
head — in neither case an accurate one ; but this note {b) errs less widely than that of p. 16 b. In 
each, the periods under the heads "legit,'" "docuit," taken together, make approximately the same 
sum, loi (or 102) years. The very heading of note {b) (^" aetas Patricii") is formed out of the 
other note {" Patricius . . . aetas eius"). Even the grammatical irregularity by which anno follows the 
first numeral and must be supplied after the second, but annos after the remaining three heads, is 
reproduced in {b) from the same, — though disguised in {b) by the use of the abbreviations " ann.," 
"an." Observe also that while there the figures are cited as learned by one Constans "in Gallis" 
\^corr., in Galliis], here the reference is ("«/ nobis traditum est") to tradition, presumably Irish. The 
correction in (5), " uii (for xu) annos seruiuit" is derived from Tirechan (p. 17 ^) [Muirchu (pp. 443 a 
16 5) says six] ; and likewise from Tirechan {ib.) that of "xxx (for xl) annos legit [Muirchu notes the 
latter alternative, p. 444 a]." From this last necessarily results the consequent correction of "Ixxii 
(for Ixi) annos docuit," so as to make the total of years of labour about 100. But the "aetas tola cxx 
(for cxi) anni" comes from Muirchu, p. 153. 

Thus {b), like {/), combining matter drawn from both narratives, may be with 
probability attributed to Ferdomnach. 

The next paragraph (c) — the parallel between the lives of Patrick and of 
Moses — which, in fact, is but a continuation of {b) (flowing out of its concluding 
words, "ut Moysi"), shows similar marks of its author. Of Patrick's four points 
of likeness to Moses, the first, third, and fourth are to be found in Muirchu ir. 
(pp. 15, 16) ; the second in Tirechan (p. 26 a). To the fourth (" ubi sunt ossa eius 
nemo nouit^'') is subjoined an explanation which is in the main an abridgment 
of the account of the dispute over his remains and the reconcilement, as related 
by Muirchu (p. 16). That account, as we have seen above (pp. xxxix— xli), 
embodies an early Down tradition ; to it (c) subjoins an addendum of a later age, 
alleging the authority of " Colombcille" for the final determination of his grave 
at Saul ; and stating farther, that the bones of Colum Cille himself, and " of all 
the Saints of Ireland," were gathered there into one common resting-place 

' No emendation can rectify the figures of the paragraph subjoined to Muirchu il. But in note (b) 
(if we take " x anno" to mean the " tenth year from baptism "), we find that the figures come pretty close 
to those of the Confessio, as regards Patrick's captivity and his escape. The total will then exceed by 
four or five years the "cxx" of Muirchu (8 r'b'). 


with his. — All this note may be confidently set down as put together by 
Ferdomnach, partly from his two authors, partly from later tradition.^ 

If we are right in thus assigning to Ferdomnach the compilation of paragraphs 
{b\ (c), and (/), we may safely assume, in the absence of contrary indications, that 
(fl?) and (e) were likewise due to him. But (d) is not devoid of positive traces of his 
hand in its combination of affinities with Muirchu and with Tirechan. Its attempt 
to fix the date of the Saint by synchronism with those of contemporary personages 
betters the example of Tirechan (p. 1 7 6), by reference to the reigns of Emperor 
and Pope instead of that of Ard Righ. To Muirchu (p. 3 a) it carries us back by 
its mention of Palladius and his mission from Celestine. But it goes beyond 
either of them in definitely stating that Patrick too had his mission from that 
Pope, — whereas Muirchu only tells us (p. 444 a) of his purpose of "visiting 
the Apostolic See"; and Tirechan, who records (p. 17 «, 1. 18) an actual visit 
made by him to Rome, places it after his work in Ireland had been not only 
begun, but well advanced. — As to {e), which treats of the Four Honours due to 
St. Patrick, it has one point of contact with Muirchu, — the reference to the Hymn 
in his honour composed by St. Sechnall (see above, pp. xl, xli), as appears by 
comparison of the third Honour^ here with the second of the petitions which in 
Muirchu 11. (p. 15 a) the Angel grants. In all else it, in common with the pre- 
ceding paragraphs from (a) down, shows the influence of the Tirechan narrative, 
in the general tendency to set forth Patrick as the Saint and Apostle of all 
Ireland, to be revered as such by all Irish Churches. 

Thus, in (a), the three peit'h'ones Pafridz have been '^ nobis traditae Hibemensibus," and are on behalf 
of everyone " nostrum, id est Hibernensium" : in {c) the account of his burial is extended to include the 
" conductio omnium sanctorum Hiberniae" : in {d) he is described as the envoy sent by the Angeland 
the Pope, " cui Hibernia tola credidit, qui eampene totam baptizavit " : and in («) the " fourfold honour " is 
due to him, " omnibus monasteriis et aedessiis per totam Hiberniam." 

We conclude, accordingly — (i) that none of the six paragraphs which begin 
where the continuous narrative breaks off at Cashel (p. 10 b, 1. 10), forms part of 
Tirechan' s work ; {2) that the first has probably been a postscript appended by 
an unknown scribe to the copy which Ferdomnach used ; (3) that the remaining 
five are an appendix due to Ferdomnach himself. 

Between [a) and that which follows, there was originally an interspace of 

' Dr. Reeves {Adamnan, p. 313), in correction of a previous judgment {Eccles. Antiqq., p. 224), assigned 
these records to the eighth century. But the story of the finding of Patrick's remains is cited in Ann. Ult., 
s. a. 552-3 (p. 52) from the Liber Cuanach, a work probably of the seventh century. See for it O'Curry, 
MS. Materials, p. 16. 

Near the end of the paragraph occurs an unintelligible sentence, which places Patrick's grave at Sabhul 
" in ecclesia iuxta mare jiroundecima," — where the scribe sets the mark .-. over the last word, and 
z (= query ?) in the margin. The simple emendation onpro-xXma carries on its face the explanation of the 
corruption ; — the syllable xi has been mistaken for a numeral. This happy conjecture appears to have 
occurred independently, and almost simultaneously, to two acute minds. It is usually attributed to Mr. 
Henry Bradshaw (so Dr. W. Stokes in V. T., p. 332, note^) : but a letter preserved by Dr. Reeves (see 
his collections on the Book of Armagh, in MS. 1093 of the Library of Trinity College, Dublin) shows 
that it was first suggested to him by the Rev. J. Scott Porter, of Belfast {pb. 1883), author oi Principles of 
Textual Criticism (1848), in November, 1859. 

2 That "Ymnum eius cantare" refers to Sechnall's Hymn is proved by the marginal note "Ymnus\ 
Caiman Alo^ which is explained by the story about Sechnall in V. T., in., pp. 242-246, q.v. 


width nearly (but not quite) equal to that which divides (a) from the close of 
Tirechan's narrative. In this space is inserted, in smaller letters and in a 
different ink, the unexplained word "dairenne,^^ — an afterthought, as it appears, of 
the scribe. The script is different from the 'book-hand' in which the rest of the 
page, and of the ms. in general, is written ; but it reappears in the " Colman Alo'" 
(above referred to) on the inner margin of next page (3 1 a, 1. 29). The para- 
graphs {U) and {c) are written continuously, as the close connexion between 
them requires. But between (<5) -i- {c) and [d) a space intervenes, of width 
equal to that between {a) and {b). This may indicate (as Dr. Bury suggests) that 
the "aSatzV^ww^" placed before (^) relates to (6) -h (c) only, — not to {d), {e), {/). 

This small cursive script appears also in many notes on the upper margin of the Lives of 
St. Martin (pp. 278, 279, tn/r., and elsevyhere) ; and is employed throughout the brief memoranda 
which begin in the latter part of col. b of p. 36, and occupy p. 37. In p. 36 i, it is demonstrable that 
the writer is Ferdomnach ; for the first line of it begins in his ordinary hand, and passes gradually 
into the script of the "dairenne" and of the marginalia above specified. It may be conjectured that 
in this word is contained some intimation that the paragraphs to which it is prefixed are not derived 
by our scribe, as the preceding one seems to have been, from his exemplar, but are the result of his 
own gleanings from Muirchu and Tirechan and other sources. 

Next follows, beginning on the second column of same page (31 d), a new 
series of additamenta. As to these, there is no need to speculate as to the 
authority under which, or the aim with which, they were put together. In an 
introductory paragraph, the scribe informs us that they are later records gathered 
by the sedulous care {''curiositate") of the "Heirs" [of Patrick], and in their 
diligence {''diligentia'') to preserve the memory of his sanctity; which he is 
about to set forth in due order ("sms locis narranda^'). And he adds that such 
gatherings are being carried on "to the [then] present day." We are justified, 
therefore, in concluding — 

(i) That Ferdomnach, in compiling this supplement, has in view, like 
Tirechan, the assertion of the prerogatives of Armagh : 

(2) That his collection is brought down to (or nearly to) the date of this ms. : 
and finally, 

(3) That the items of it are put together, not at random, but arranged {''suis 
locis") on a system. 

On examination, the principle of the arrangement proves to be local. It is 
as follows : — First stands (I.), a single document, narrating the foundation of 
the important Church of Trim, in Meath. Next follows (II.), a group of six 
records, all relating to Churches of Connaught. Then, finally, we have (III.), a 
like group of four, treating of Churches of Leinster. 

(I.) Accordingly, the first of these records (pp. 31 b-2,2 b) is a narrative, of 
considerable length and full detail, of the conversion of Feidhelmidh, Laeghaire's 
son. Chief of Trim, by Lomman, Patrick's sister's son, very soon after the Tara 
conflict ; of the Chief's dedication of his son and of all his substance to the 


Missionaries ; of the building of a Church there by Patrick, " in the twenty-fifth 
year before Armagh^ was founded," which was afterwards held by a succession of 
"bishops and priests venerating St. Patrick and his Heirs." It closes with a 
list of these, and a pedigree of their contemporary Chiefs, nine in all. Inasmuch 
as Sechnassach, the last of these, is tenth in descent from Laeghaire, who died 
circ. 463, we may presume that he belonged to the latter half of the eighth 
century, and was therefore little prior to (possibly contemporary with) Ferdom- 
nach. It follows, therefore, that this record was written at (or up to) a date which 
was almost recent when Ferdomnach used it. 

Incidentally, this narrative gives us some information about St. Patrick's other 
nephews, the four brothers of Lomman, to whom Churches were assigned in 
Meath and Roscommon;^ also the interesting facts that the mother of Feidhelmidh 
(wife, therefore, of Laeghaire), '■'■ Scothnoe, daughter of the King of the Britons," 
and also his wife, were of British birth ; and that Feidhelmidh was able to address 
Lomman in the British tongue. 

After this long record, which ends on 16 v" b, the scribe has left (p. 32 <$) a 
large blank space to the end of the column [now occupied by an entry in a much 
later hand, made by the scribe of King Brian Boroimhe, more than two centuries 
later; — for which see Chapter viii., in/r.'], marking the division between it and 
the group (II.) of records which follows, and occupies pp. 2)3 1 34- 

(II.) The group of Connaught records begins on the next page (33). They 
belong to North Connaught, — partly to Roscommon, but chiefly to Sligo and 
Leitrim — Mayo having been sufficiently treated of in Tirechan 11. 

The/lrsi of these, occupying the greater part of col. a, treats of the perpetual 
gift made to Patrick of the Church of " Cluain Cain in Ackud" (apparently 
Achonry, whence the name of the diocese which contains most of Sligo and 
part of Mayo), by Colman its Bishop, together with endowments in land and 
cattle added by the chiefs of the Hy-Fiachrach whose territory lay mainly in 
Sligo, and by other benefactors (chiefly of Roscommon) specified by name, and 
then classed under the general name " Ciarrichi (= Cerrigi, pp. 17 «, 25)." To this 
is appended an explanation that the Saint, foreseeing future aggression on the rights 
of his ^'/amilia" (= muintir)^ " joined it into unity of peace and in one rule of faith 
xmder this one heir of his Apostolic Chair of Armagh" (again "A/fimac/iae"). 

The second (p. 33 (5) relates how one '■^ Binean, scribe, priest, and anchorite," 
devoted to Patrick a church which he had founded on land inherited by him from 
his mother. For these facts cp. Vit. vii. (in Tr, Th., p. 204). This Binean (or 

' Here, for the first time in this MS., the name of this city is pedantically Latinized "Altimackae " ; as 
afterwards p. 33 a, and passim in the introductory part oi Liber Angeli (see below, p. Ixxviii). 

* "Lomman,'" " Broccaid" and "Broccan" appear on the list of p. 18 ; the former two also on that of 
the Selcae gathering (p. 24 b), and the third also if (as is probable) Bronachus = Broccan ; Broccaid again, 
with Sachell (p. 32 a). For " Manis" [corr. Munis) and "Mugenoc," cp. V.T., 11., pp. 68, 82. Their 
churches were "Forgnide" (Forgney) and "Brechmag" (Breaghy), in Longford; " Imbliuch Bch" 
(Emlagh), in Roscommon; and " Cell Dumi Gluinn" (Kilglinn), in Meath. 

^ ¥ or Loarnus, Medb, Ernascus, cp. p. 25 b, su;pr. {" Lockarnach," " larnascus," "Medbu"). 


Benignus) certainly is not the Benignus who afterwards succeeded to the See of 
Armagh,' but may possibly be the ^^ Benignus frater Cethiaci"" of p. 24 <$. He can 
hardly be the pefson mehtioned below as the Saint's disciple placed by him at 
Drumlease, unless it be assumed that Drumlease is the Church here claimed as 
an offering made to Patrick. 

The third {ib., 1. 11) begins with Patrick's visit to Calry {'^ Calrigi^') in Sligo, 
where he baptized ^^ MacCairthin'''' and "Caichan,^^ who thereupon bestowed on 
him a grant of lands, specified in minute detail. The writer, in defining the 
boundaries, desists from the attempt to render his materials into Latin, and is 
for the most part content for the rest of the records of this group (II.) — to the end 
of this and the next page (33, 34) — and likewise for those that follow (pp. 35, 36 a) 
of group (III.), to reproduce them in the vernacular Irish, in which, as we may 
infer, they were written by the scribes of the " Heirs of Patrick." Even in the 
first of the records (p. 33) of group (II.) — that which begins with " Colmanus" — a 
few words of Irish appear.^ 

The fourth (entirely in Irish), written across the full width of the page at foot, 
is connected with the third, relating to the same district and family. It treats 
of Drumlease (in Leitrim, on the SligO border), in which Patrick placed a disciple 
named Benignus, to whom succeeded a daughter of the race of Caichan (above 
mentioned), Lassar, who had received the veil from the Saint. To this Church an 
endowment was added by a benefactor named '^ Feth Fio,^' to be held (apparently) 
by one of his own descendants in preference, but only if approved as good, 
devout, and upright. If none such were to be found, it was to pass to someone 
of the Drumlease community under like conditions. Failing these, the reversion 
of it was to fall to the community {^'muintir'") of Patrick. 

In the Ji/th (p. 34 a) Latin is resumed, with some Irish words retained as in 
the first of the group. Of the four donors of land named in it, the first two are 
the Saint's brother's sons. The gifts appear to be on a smaller scale than those 
previously recounted, but they were " offered to Patrick " : the district in which 
they are situate is unspecified, but the mention of ^'MacRimae'^ seems to connect 
it with Muirisca of Sligo (p. 29 a, 1. 7). We read only that in it he built a Church. 
The record closes unexpectedly with the large statement that " Coirpre offered 
with them his kingdom to Patrick"; but who this Coirpre was or where his 
kingdom lay, we are not informed. He may possibly have been the Coirpre, son 
of Amhalghaidh, mentioned in V. T., 11., p. 126, whose lands may have lain east 
of the Moy. 

A longer record (the sixth and last of this group), on the same column, closes 
the tale. of Connaught benefactions. It is an account, entirely in Irish, of lands 
given in perpetuity to Patrick by three nuns. One of these, " Ctcmmen,'' appears 
to have added a further gift of the half- value recoverable by her, as joint-owner 

^ The concluding words " reliquit ^ost se in suo loco" do not mean "in his (Patrick's) place," but 
" in his own (Binean's) place," the place of his own foundation. 
* For translations of these Irish passages, see Appendix C. 


(by purchase) with one ^^ Brethan" of " Ockier Ackid^^ (Oughteragh, in Leitrim), 
"with the appertaining wood, plain, and meadow." The particulars of this value 
are stated with curious minuteness, in silver and gold by weight, partly in the 
shape of "a can, a necklace, and a circlet," the amount being made up in swine 
and sheep, and a vestment, all likewise priced in silver. It is added that in her 
half of the purchase-money was included the price (a "cumaV of silver) of a 
brown horse, which she had acquired in barter for a mantle of her own handi 
work from "Eladach Mac Maile-Odrae." Hence we are enabled approximately to 
date this record, for the death of this man is assigned to a.d. 737-8, in Ann. UlL, 
p. 196. The presumption is, that the whole group (II.) of Connaught records, 
of which this is the last, was committed to writing not later than the first half 
of the eighth century, — probably earlier than the date above indicated for the 
record (I.). 

The second column of p, 34 is left blank, indicating presumably that the records 
yielded no farther matter to be added to the group relating to Connaught. 

(III.) On the next page (35) the scribe enters on a new series of collections. 
Resuming his Latin, but soon relapsing into Irish (to the end of p. 36 a), he 
relates traditions pertaining to Leinster, which form a group (III.) of records 
distinct from the preceding, yet apparently drawn from the same archives, though 
ultimately traceable to a different authority. 

Of these Leinster records, the Jirst {a) tells (p. 35 «) of Iserninus (otherwise 
styled "Bishop i^/M") — once (as Muirchu relates, p. 3 <$) Patrick's fellow-disciple 
under Germanus of Auxerre) — how, after refusing to go and preach in Ireland, 
he was driven by a contrary wind, an involuntary missionary, to the southern 
coast of the island. His work had made some progress (in Leinster as it appears) 
until checked by a chief named "Endae Cennsalach" who banished him and his 
converts. Afterwards Patrick arrived (no doubt on the mission to Leinster 
related in the closing sentences of Tirechan's narrative, p. 30 a), and after 
converting the sons of Dunlaing, as there recorded, converted also Enda's son 
*' Crimthann,'' at '^ Ratkbikch^' (Rathvilly, in Carlow), and obtained from him 
permission for Iserninus and his converts to return from their exile. According 
to Tirechan (p. 30 b), Iserninus was at this time ordained by Patrick^ fpre- 
sumably to the Episcopate], and probably then assumed the name of Fith, which 
is here used interchangeably with his Latin name. The rest of the narrative 
relates how Crimhthann endowed the Church with a grant of land, and how 
Iserninus did homage to Patrick and was confirmed by him in the possession of 
his parent Church {"andoW), which he, with his converts, thereafter occupied. 

The second {b) likewise connects itself (pp. 35 b, 36 a) with the narrative of 
Muirchu i., and with Patrick's journey from Tara southward, related at the end of 
Tirechan 11. "Feec'' is named incidentally by Muirchu (p. 8 b) as disciple of 

1 He had received orders (as deacon or priest) along with Patrick, according to Muirchu {utsup-., 1. 12), 
from Amatorex. 


the Dubhthach maccu Lughir, who alone rose in reverence before Patrick in the 
King's palace at Tara ; and Tirechan (p. 30 <5) briefly mentions him as having 
been ordained by the Saint in Leinster as Bishop of Sletty. Here, both these 
persons reappear ; and the details of the ordination are supplied. In Leinster 
Patrick meets Dubhthach again, and requests his aid in finding a man fit to be 
made a Bishop, " free, well-born, without defect, without blemish, neither over- 
rich, nor over-poor, husband of one wife, and father of one child." Dubhthach 
suggests Fiacc, who, however, had gone from him into Connaught. He 
opportunely arrives while they are consulting ; and Patrick at once confers on 
him the tonsure, baptism, and the grade of Bishop, so that he was "the Bishop 
first consecrated in Leinster."^ 

Next follows (c) the designation (p. 36 «) of the site for Fiacc' s abode and 
Church, namely Sletty, which is given by Crimhthann to Patrick, and received 
from him by Fiacc (cp. V. T., iii., pp. 190, 192). To this is appended a short 
note (for which cp. V. T., iii,, p. 242) concerning a chariot sent by Patrick to 
Fiacc, through the intervention of " Sechnall" (Secundinus),* "because he knew 
of his infirmity." 

Last of all (?(5.), and filling the rest of the same column, comes {d) a short but 
important memorandum, to which the preceding ones lead up, relating to a much 
later period. It records how Aedh, successor after two centuries' interval of 
Fiacc in Sletty — the same whom Muirchu addresses as his preceptor and patron 
— ^visited Armagh, and after interchange of gifts with Seghene, then Primate 
(a.d. 661—688), offered his "kindred and his Church to Patrick till doomsday"; 
and adds that Conchadh (presumably Aedh's immediate successor) made a like 
visit to the successor of Seghene, Fland Febla (a.d. 688-714), and, as it appears, 
was confirmed by him in the possession of his See. 

These entries accordingly, which occupy pp. 35, 36 a, serve as a supplement 
to the meagre notes of Patrick's relations with the Church in Leinster which 
Tirechan throws in at the end of his work. They represent it as founded by 
Patrick's fellow-disciple Iserninus ; endowed and established at Sletty as its 
centre by Crimhthann, Patrick's convert ; and finally, after the lapse of two 
hundred years, in the latter half of the seventh century, formally subjected by the 
Bishop of Sletty to the See of Patrick. The importance of these entries is 
obvious, in view of the fact that Sletty was no ordinary Church, but was, under 
Fiacc and his successors, the metropolis of Leinster.' 

1 This story is to be found also in V. T., Ill,, pp. i88, 190, and in the Preface to Fiacc' s Hymn 
{L.H., I., p. 96 ; II., p. 31). It is to be noted that the tonsure comes first; that the consecration seems 
to have been per saltum (though this is not made certain) ; and, finally, that this incident must have 
occurred before that of the preceding paragraph, in view of the fact that, according to Tirechan {ui su;pr.), 
Iserninus was consecrated by Patrick. But perhaps we are to understand record {b) to mean that (as the 
writer of that Preface has it) Fiacc was first to be made Bishop of Leinster. 

' It is remarkable that neither Muirchu nor (except in the list of p. 18) Tirechan speaks of this person ; 
though in the second " petition " (Muirchu 11., p. 15 « ; see farther p. xl, su:pr.) he is tacitly referred to in the 
mention of his Hymn (see also the third of the "Four Honours," p. 31 «, and p. Ixvi, su;pr.]. But, as we 
shall see presently, his name is associated with Patrick's in the Liber Angeli (p. 42 b). 

^ See Prcef. ad Hymn. Fiechi, L.H., 1. 1., p. 96, 1. 28. 




It is more than probable that these notices (group III.) of the early history of the Church in 
Leinster embody the substance of information obtained from Aedh of Sletty when he visited Armagh, 
— and entered in the Armagh records, as introductory to this memorandum of his visit and the sub- 
mission made by him. This hypothesis explains their insertion here, following on the documents 
derived from the -archives of the Primates, yet not absolutely continuous with them, but separated 
by the intervention of a blank column (p. 34 b), and the transition marked by the large initial P which 
introduces them (p. 35 a). 

The relation Jjetween Sletty and Armagh, established by this visit in the latter days of the seventh 
century, was, no doubt, maintained ; and thus we have the explanation of the fact that, more than a 
century later, Muirchu's Life was known at Armagh, and admitted to its place in the "Book of Armagh P 

It has been pointed out in Chapter 11. (pp. xxv, xxvi) that Muirchu's work yields evidence of the 
writer's accurate knowledge of the Patrician sites in Armagh, and in N.E. Ireland generally. It 
is possible that Muirchu may have acquired this knowledge, not personally by visiting these parts, but 
at second hand from Aedh, who, after his visit to Armagh, may have gone as a pilgrim to Saul arid' 
Slemish (see above, p. xxxiii). — But, again, it is possible that Muirchu may have accompanied his 
master to Armagh, and in his farther journey (if he made it) ; as we know he was his companion when 
both attended the Synod of Adamnan a few years later, — It is to be noted that Muirchu's knowledge 
of Armagh and Down is no less conspicuous in his Book 11. than in his Book i., though Book ir. 
does not claim to be written under Aedh's authority, as Book i. does. 

On the next column (p. 36 h), the scribe writes (in such Latin as he can 
command) his apology for having neglected to translate into that tongue the 
foregoing "pauca per Scotticam inperfede scripta^^; affirming that he has forborne so 
to do, not for, lack of skill in "■' Romana lingua," but because the documents before 
him were but imperfectly intelligible, and moreover abounded in '^ Scotaica 
nomina" hardly capable of being expressed in Latin form. He concludes by 
asking the reader's prayers,^ in four halting lines, meant for heroic hexameters. 

The rest of this column and the whole of the next page (37) have been filled 
by him with a body of brief notes, which for convenience we shall designate his 
notulcB^ written in a minute cursive script (the same as that which appears in 
the word "dairenne" interlined in p. 2>o i, after 1. 20: (see on it p. Ixvi, supr.)} 
They have been described by Dr. Whitley Stokes {V. T., Introd., p. xcii) as 
" representing in the main that portion of the Tripartite Life which is not embraced 
in Muirchu's Memoir and Tirechan's Notes." And this is on the whole a just 
account of the greater part of them, with these qualifications — (i) that the notulcB 
of ff. 18 &°<5 and 19 r" (pp. 36, 37) do not represent nearly all of the contents 
of the Tripartite Life which lie outside of Muirchu and Tirechan ; (2) that they 
include some references to matters which it has in common with Tirechan ; and 
(3) that a great part of them cannot be traced to either of these authors. They are 
so severely abridged that sentences are denoted by a few words, or sometimes but 
one ; and words often by initial letters only. 

' Pulsare in these lines = orare. Cp. St. Matt. vii. 7 {Lat. Vulg,). 

"^ See for these notulm, and their correspondence with V, T. and with Tirechan, the fuller details given 
in Appendix D. 

3 The first line begins with " atlbe isenchui "; of which the first eleven letters {ailbe isen) are written in 
the ordinary bookhand of the body of the MS. ; the rest of the line, and of what follows it, in this altered 
and very minute character, except in a few places where the ordinary script casually appears.' 

Plate I. 

Cotitiirei'iTvitHicc S(JthocftMn3<*lvtic 
vi(\i)M<x ctiptccc -j>nttm^ «>U(>fc Uf 


<WflM<;H>/;<-'-? Wi^ j0m»^^ wit^M/f if^ 
Artt j?t|. wiU-«i,. .v^t;f J«-/)Kv^,.^,«.».'-. 

FoL. iSv. 


It is necessary here to examine these notula in their relations with {A) the V. T., and (B) the 
documents of our ms,^ 

, Of the three Homilies (written in Irish), which are the " Parts" of the Vita Tripartita, the First in 
the main follows Muirchu's Book i.,* with many amplifications and additions — of which one' is drawn 
from his Book ii., and a few from Tirechan (8 r° b, 1. 22). The Second proceeds (but largely expand- 
ing and interpolating) on the lines of Tirechan. It follows his narrative closely from the crossing of 
the Shannon {Horn, 11., p. 92) to the fast on Croagh Patrick {ib., p. 1 12) ; in the previous and subsequent 
stages the correspondence is but loose and occasional, especially towards the close (pp. 124 et sqq.), 
where matter from other sources (including the opening capital of Muirchu's Book 11.) predominates. 
To all this compilation it prefixes (pp. 66 et sqq.) the story of Trim, as told in the first of the Armagh 
records which our ms. (f. 16 r°a) subjoins as Additamenta after Tirechan. — The Third is still more 
heterogeneous, and diverges farther from our documents ; yet has many coincidences with them. It 
includes (pp. 186-196; see also 240, 242) facts related in the last sentences of Tirechan 11., together 
with others belonging to the Sletty tradition preserved in the latter part of these Additamenta [l. 18 r" 
and 7f a). It also incorporates (passim) some of the legends with which Muirchu closes his first Book; 
and from his second it borrows the Down traditions of his death and burial, with which it closes 
(pp. 242 et sqq.). For further statement of the relations between V. T. and Muirchu's work, see above, 
Chh. n.. III. (pp. xxxvi, xxxix, xl). 

{A) Comparing, then, the notula of flf. 18 »" 5 and 19 r° with these Homilies, we find : — {a) that they 
have no relation to Horn. i. ; — (5) that with Horn. 11. they correspond in numerous points (though not 
in order) throughout 18 v°b, and the first seven lines of 19 r° a; — {c) that thence to the end the 
coincidences, are with Horn, iii., hardly less frequent, but even more irregular in arrangement. 

{B) Proceeding farther to compare these notulm with the documents of our ms., we find that — 

(i) The noiula nowhere relate to anything ; — {a) in Muirchu' ; or (J) in Tirechan i. ; or 
{c) in Tirechan 11. where it stands apart from V. T. ; — or {d) in Groups i. and 11. of the 
Armagh Additamenta. 

But that— 

(ii) They touch on partsj'of {a) Tirechan 11., and of (3) the Additamenta of Group ill. 
which coincide with parts of V. T., 11. and iii. 

(iii) And, more particularly, that these contacts are as follows : — 

(a) Of the first groups of mtula of f. 1 8 &° 3 (11. 1 8, 1 9), with Tirechan 11. (f. 14 »° a) 
[= V. T., II., p. 94] ; — relating to Tirerrill (see p. Ixii, supr.). 

{b) Of the earlier part of the second group of f. 18 0° 5 (11. 20-24), with Tirechan 11. 
(f. 15 r°) [= V. T., II., pp. 144-150] ; relating to Sligo, Leitrim, and Donegal. 

(c) Of the greater part of the fourth group of f. 19 ?-° a (11. 12-15), with the second 
and third of the Armagh Additamenta (f. 18 r" b, v° a) [= V. T., in., pp. 190, 192] ; — 
relating to Sletty. 

{d) Of a single half-line (20) of the next group {ib.), with Tirechan 11. (f. i^v'b) 
[= V.T., III., p. 186] ;— relating to Kildare. 

The probable inference from the above examination is, that the compiler of these notulce, in 
putting them together, not only made no use of Muirchu, or of Tirechan i-, but that where he handles 
the matter of Tirechan 11., he is not borrowing from it, but from material common to it with the 
traditions which were, by later hands, worked into Homm. 11., in., of V. T. 

' To avoid confusion, the refeirences to our MS. in what follows are made according to the ff. of the MS., 
not to the pp. of this edition. 

' The correspondence extends even to the displacing (noted above, Chap. 11., pp. xx, xxvii) of the 
chapter (10) of Muirchu I., which introduces the King and his wizards in consultation before the arrival of 
Patrick {Horn. I., p. 32). 

' Viz., the Tassach paragraph {Ham. I., p. 62 ; which also appears in Ham. in., p. 259). 

* The first of these is cited in Latin {Horn, n., p. 124), almost verbatim, from Muirchu n. (e. i . ; f . 7 v<> a). 

' Unless in case of the name "Mac C-uill" (as noted above). 



The manner in which these notulce are arranged needs attention. They are 
disposed in groups, rather in topographical than in chronological order, distin- 
guished apparently as derived from different sources. Of these groups there are 
three in x^v" a, divided by spaces. — The first of them is of two lines only, and 
relates to Tirerrill. The second, of twelve lines, passing over Mayo, indicates a 
route through Sligo, Leitrim, and Donegal, into Tyrone, and thence to northern 
Antrim (Dal Riata). The remaining three lines form the third group, which 
follows him southward,^ into Dal Araide.^ The next group consists of the first 
seven lines of i^r'a, and reverts to the work in Meath, but not of its earliest 
period. For so far the points of contact are with Horn. ii. — All the rest of the 
notulce, running irregularly parallel with Horn, iii., fall into groups of very unequal 
length, distinguished by marks (•») in the left-hand margin. They begin with 
two of one line each (11. 8, 9), both of which belong to Ulster; then a third 
(10-15) to Sletty ; a fourth (1. 16 to end of column) to Kildare (but with one or 
two notes inserted that relate to Ulster). — The second column is similarly 
distinguished into three groups, all relating to Munster — chiefly Limerick and 

To the question — Why were these notulcB inserted in our MS. ? — the answer is not obvious. 
Why should the scribe (and it is certain that they are from the same hand as the preceding text), 
after transcribing so fully and elaborately the records whose evidence he desired to perpetuate, follow 
them up with these columns of mere jottings, abbreviated with such rigour that, but for the clue 
supplied by the parallel narratives of V. T., they would be now, as they must long have been to every 
student of the ms., an insoluble puzzle ? One might regard them as a highly condensed summary 
of the heads of a history, or a homily, intended to continue and to supplement the preceding docu- 
ments, — were it not that, as we have seen, they are in some parts parallel, not supplementary, to 
Tirechan, and in others repeat the contents of the Armagh Additamenta. Moreover, it is hardly 
credible that, after completing in such admirable calligraphy his transcript of the full narratives 
that occupy his earlier pages, the scribe should proceed to disfigure his handiwork by making his 
blank columns a receptacle for rough notes, whether of other documents which he forbore to copy 
in extenso, or of materials collected for a history, or lecture, or homily, of his own composition. 

It seems more probable that he placed them here, not as memoranda for his own use, but as a 
transcript of notes which had come into his hands, and which he deemed worthy to be preserved, as 
drawn from a source which he regarded as authoritative, — presumably the same as that from which 
he derived the preceding records of the " Heirs of Patrick." — One may go farther and conjecture 
that, as the work of Muirchu was inspired by Aedh, and that of Tirechan by Ultan, so, in compiling 
these latter Patrician collections, Ferdomnach may have been but editor and penman, while the 
materials were provided, and the arrangement supervised, by Torbach, who, as he tells us, "dictated"' 
his work, who was himself "an emment scribe," and who, as Heir of Patrick {ob. 708),* had at his 
disposal the archives of Armagh. It is known that Ferdomnach {pb. 846) outlived Torbach by nearly 
forty years ; and if, as is likely, he completed the MS. after his master's death, he would feel bound to 
reproduce all the matter bequeathed by him (even though it was in parts imperfectly intelligible) ; — 
and with the rest these memoranda, representing, it may be, the heads of the local traditions, oral or 
written, of divers Churches which, in divers parts of Ireland, claimed Patrick as their founder.* And 
these traditions would naturally be in great measure the same as those put together at a later period 

' Possibly into Down, if the final "MacCuill" means the MacCuill of Muirchu I. (f. e^vb; cp. V. T., III., 
p. 220. ^ But the " laCenel Fmchrach" at the end reverts to Tirerrill. 

' See below. Chap. viii. * Ann. Ult., s. a. 807 (p. 292). 

^ Similarly, the notes at foot of cols, a and b, 19 r", may be explained as transcripts of memoranda left 
by Torbach. 


by the compilers of the Tripartite Life, but containing much that their work omits, and omitting much 
(especially of the marvellous) of what it contains. Thus this hypothesis accounts both for the place 
which these notes hold in the ms., and for their coincidences with and divergences from the matter 
of the V. T. If we accept it, we must farther admit that this latter part of the Patrician Division of 
the MS., being written after Torbach's death, is of later date than (at least the earlier part of) the Biblical 
Division, — for the Gospel of St. Matthew, as we have seen (p. xv, supr.), was completed in 807, the 
year of Torbach's Primacy ; and that it was not until after the ms. was completed that the arrangement 
of the MS., by which the Patrician documents stand first, was made, — whether by Ferdomnach or by 
a later hand. The twenty-four leaves which these documents occupy form three complete quires (see 
p. xiv, supr.) ; and thus it was in the power of any owner to place them before, after, or between the 
other two Divisions, as he thpught fit. 

The value of these noiulce, whatever may be their source or the purpose for 
which they were here inserted, abbreviated as they are, and in parts unexplained, 
is considerable. Their extensive agreement, sometimes even in minute detail,^ 
with the contents of V. T., Parts 11. and iii., proves that those Homilies, though 
their date is unknown and was probably later by centuries than that of our ms., 
are based upon materials which were in being and accessible — probably gathered 
from the records of many Churches, in many parts of Ireland — as early as the 
time of Ferdomnach, — as early (we may safely assume) as the latter, if not the 
former, half of the eighth century. 

To col. a of f. 19 r", a group of six lines, and to col. b one of ten, of similarly 
abbreviated notes, are subjoined, none of which has any relation to Patrick or the 
Patrician Documents. The group of col. (5 is a short summary of a life of Pope 
Gregory I., similar to that which is attributed to Paul of Cassino, That of col. a 
is not so easily explicable : the notes seem to be liturgical ; — possibly the heads 
of an office such as Dr. Lawlor has discovered and reconstructed in the Book 
of Mulling.' 

After the pages (ff. 18 v" and 19 r°) which contain these notes, a blank page is 
left (f. 19 v"). After this, in the next page (f. 20 r"), the ms. reverts to Muirchu, 
and fills it with his misplaced Preface, and Table of the Capita of his Book i., 
already treated of above (pp. xvii, xviii). The Table overflows this page, and 
ends at the top of 20 v° a, concluding with the important subscription in which the 
author reveals his name. 

Immediately after this, without interspace to mark the change, but introduced 
by a large initial letter set in the margin, there follows a paragraph prefatory to a 
new document, widely differing in character from all that precedes, entitled 
" Liber Angeli" 

As we have seen, Muirchu' s Life is simply a narrative, written with no appa- 
rent bias and in no assignable interest. Tirechan's Memoirs have indeed, in 

1 S.g. the sfake {^"cli") set at Ard Fothaid (18 v" b, 1. 24, = V. 2., 11., p. 148) ; the tooth lost at Ath 
Fiacla (19 r" b, 1. 8, = V. T., ill., p. 198) ; and the excuses of the sons of Mumiech {?.b. 11. 10-12, = V.T., iii., 
p. 212). See farther in Appendix D, infr. 

' See Chap. vil. of his work, " The Book of Mulling'' (1897). 


Book II., an avowed purpose — the affirmation of the rights of the See of Patrick; 
but he carries it out by compiling a matter-of-fact record of the Saint's founda- 
tions and ordinations. So, too, the Additamenta of ff. 16-18 were no doubt put 
together with like purpose ; but they have been apparently selected from docu- 
ments which were originally drawn up as mere memoranda of benefactions given 
or homage rendered to that See. But the Liber Angeli is evidently a document 
deliberately framed with intent to establish the prerogatives and possessions of 
Armagh, and its Primatial jurisdiction and supremacy, on the basis of an 
alleged divine ordinance.^ — The date assigned to it by Zimmer (p. 83), "probably 
about 730," is much too early. In its present form it can hardly be placed 
before the last quarter of the eighth century. 

The document divides itself (at a point after 1. 2 of p. 41 b, marked by an 
interspace) into two nearly equal portions, of which the first is a narrative and a 
colloquy — preliminary to the second, which is a series of rules defining the rights 
of Armagh. 

The first Part (pp. 40 ^—41 b, \. 2) relates a colloquy between St. Patrick and 
an angel sent to visit him^ and to convey to him the reward of his labours in the 
shape of two boons. These are {a) a vast extension of the limits of the See of 
Armagh (p. 40 a, II. 15-19) to certain specified points (p. 401$, 11. 3-15); and {b) a 
grant to him and to Armagh of "all the nations of the Scots [Irish] as his Paruchia.'' 
In rendering thanks for this divine donation, the Saint declares it as his right and 
his purpose, out of the abundance thus bestowed to provide for "the Religious 
of the Churches and Monasteries which should thus in future be affiliated to his 
See {ib., 1, 24 to end). And in return he asserts for his "heir" in that See the 
right to obtain hospitality for a night and day for himself and his retinue (up to 
the number of fifty persons), in whatsoever Church or coenobitical Monastery he 
may visit in Ireland (p. 41 a, 11. 13-25). This Part then closes with a paragraph 
(apparently in the words not of the Saint, but of the narrator of the colloquy) 
declaring how "the Religious" had from the first resorted to Armagh; and 
how it was ordered that certain classes of these "Virgins, Penitents/ and Married 
Servants of the Church," should worship in "the Church of the Northern 
quarter"; but the rest, with the Bishop, Presbyters, and Anchorites, in "the 
Southern Basilica"^ {ib., 1. 26 — to end, and b, 11. 1,2). 

The second Part (pp. 41 <5, 1. 3 — 42 <5, 1. 24), to which the first serves as intro- 
duction, is a formal and detailed code of Decrees, establishing the dignity, rights, 
and jurisdiction of Armagh and its Primate. As the grounds of its Primacy, the 
preamble alleges (p. 41 h, 11. 5-1 1): — [a) The "privilege" bestowed on it "by 

' Accordingly, it seems to have been submitted in 1004 to Mael Suthain, the confessor of Brian 
Boroimhe (as the note entered by him at foot of p. 32 b shows) to' satisfy the King about the prerogative of 
Armagh. See, for this note, p. Ixxviii, infr., and Chap. viii. 

'^ This angehc visit is related also, but briefly, in V. T., ill., p. 232. Does V. T. derive it from Liber 
A ngeli, or do both record an Armagh tradition ? 

^ After " j>oenttentes " (1. 30), ei is to be supplied. 

^ For these Churches, see Reeves [Ancient Churches of Armagh, pp. 12-16). 


God and His Angel, and St. Patrick its founder" (as related in the first Part): 
{b) Its possession of certain relics treasured in the " Southern Church" — those of 
" SS. Peter and Paul, Stephen and Laurence, and others"; and above all, a linen 
cloth containing "the most holy Blood of the Redeemer" Himself. For these 
reasons it is decreed that — (i) No Church, prelate, or abbot of the Scots shall 
assert such authority as to contravene the authority of the "Heir of Patrick"; 
(ii) Every Church "in the whole island of the Scots" is by God's donation "in 
the special society of Patrick and the Heir of his See of Armagh " ; (iii) Every 
monk shall be free to "return to Patrick," by transferring himself from his own 
Church to the special Church of the Saint, without incurring rebuke or excom- 
munication. — For so far these enactments define the prerogative of the See : the 
rest declare the personal privileges of the Primate, as follows, (iv) The right of 
the Primate to hospitable entertainment is reasserted and enlarged, and enforced 
by a penalty^ in case of refusal ; (v) A penalty shall be imposed for dishonour 
done to any of the sacred ^^ insignia" : in double measure in case of such as 
specially pertain to the Saint ; (vi) In all cases of irreverence or injury done 
to his '^/amilia or paruchia," the Primate shall be sole judge ; (vii) Any case 
whatsoever which "the Judges of the tribes of the Scots" find too difficult for 
them, may be referred to him ; but if he with his council of sages fail to solve it, 
then (viii) It shall be sent for final decision " to the Apostolic See, the Chair 
of the Apostle Peter, which has the authority of the city of Rome." — These 
Decrees, or perhaps the last four, or possibly only the final one, claim to have 
been enacted by "Auxilius, Patrick, and Iserninus"; so that Leinster is repre- 
sented as concurring in the assertion of the rights of Armagh.^ 

For a great part of these Decrees no parallel is elsewhere to be found in our ms. ; but the Liber 
Angelt, in both its Parts, presents many points of contact with the earlier documents. Thus, the 
special love of Patrick for Armagh (p. 40 5, 1. 10) we have already met with in Muirchu 11. (p. 15 a, 1. 22) ; 
and the donation of all the nations of the Scots to him and his See as his paruchia (p. 41 b, 1. 15), in 
Tirechan 11. (p. 21 h, 11. 28, sqq^.')- So, too, for the "aqmlonalis plaga" of Armagh and its " aeclessta" 
(p. 41 a, 1. 33), we can refer to Muirchu i. (p. 13 ^, 11. 7, 14). These instances occur in the first or 
introductory Part. In the preamble to the second Part the possession of the relics (p. 41 b, 11. 13, 21) of 
the Saints points back to the passage (p. 17 a)' which has been shown above to be a detached fragment 
of Tirechan 11. ; while the prerogatives affirmed in the first of the Decrees that follow are expressed 
in terms which, though obscure, evidently follow the phraseology of the protest on behalf of the 
"Paruchia" in Tirechan 11. (p. 21b, 1. 41 et sqq.)^ Finally, it is from Muirchu 11. (p. 15 ^, 1. 4) that 
the fourth Decree derives the promise that to Patrick shall be committed the judgment of the men of 
Ireland at the Last Day. 

It is noteworthy also that the use (see above, p. Ixviii, note ') of "Altum Machae" for Ardd 
Machae, which first occurs in the Primatial records (pp. 32 a, 33 a), is in the Liber Angeli used 
throughout the introductory first Part (pp. 40 a, 1. 12 ; b, 11. 1 1 ; 41 a, 1. 26) ; "Ardd Machae" only in the 

1 Seven " ancellae" [probably not female slaves, but cumala — a money equivalent]. 

* None of them has any affinity with the so-called Canons of the " Synod of Patrick, Auxilius, and 
Iserninus," for which see Bruns, Canones, t. 11., p. 301 ; or Migne, P.Z., t. Liii., p. 823. 

3 Cp. also p. 29 b, 11. i7, 38. 

* Cf. "non lignum licet contra eum mitti!^ "iuratur a se omne quod iuratur" (Tirechan); with 
" non licet contra illam mittere consortem [? lege sortem] . . . . a se rede supra iuratur . . . omnes 
aeclessias" [Lib. Ang,). For "lignum," see Graves [Proc. R.I.A., Ser. 3, vol. iii., pp. 20 et sqq.). 



Saint's speech (p. 41 a, 1. 18 [p. 40 b, 1. 19, is not an exception] ) ; but "Ardd Machae'^ in the second 
Part (Decrees, p. 41 h, 1. 3 ; v" a, I. i ; h, 1. 5). But in the subjoined liturgical note (p. 42 1, 1. 26) 
"Alium Machae" reappears. 

The transition from the Colloquy to the Decrees is so marked as to raise the suspicion that the 
two Parts of the Lzlier Angeli do not come from one hand ; that the latter Part in substance, if not 
exactly in its present form, existed first ; and that the former Part was subsequently prefixed, to intro- 
duce the statement of the claims of the See of Patrick, and (as before said) to strengthen them by 
providing for them the basis of a Divine ordinance. This suspicion is confirmed by the change above 
pointed out in the name applied to the city— " Ardd Machae" — in that which stands now as Second 
Part, but was (on this hypothesis) of earlier origin ; " Alium Machae," the later Latinized form, 
belonging to the later period at which the first Part was written as preface to the other, and probably 
the final liturgical note was appended. Moreover, the Angel referred to in the preamble to the 
Decrees is the Angel of Muirchu 11. (p. 15 a), and of Tirechan 11. (p. 21 3)— not the Angel of the 

In both parts, however, of this document, the Decrees and the Colloquy alike, the diction betrays 
that they are of later date than any of the Latin documents which stand before it. The title of 
" Cathedra Apostolica" given to Armagh (p. 40 <?, 8) ; the ecclesiastical terms, " dioecesis" '^ monaste- 
rium," "religiosi" " coenoMlae," " anchoritae," "abbas," and the titles "Praesul" given to Patrick and 
other bishops, and even "Pontifex" (to him eminently), as well as "Archiepiscopus,"^ are evidence of 
this. To these instances may be added the use of " Altum Machae" for Ardmachae. For though that 
form occurs in a previous, and no doubt earlier, record (p. 32 a) — one of those derived from the Armagh 
archives — it is there to be ascribed to Ferdomnach, who presumably translated that record from an 
Irish original into the Latin, in which he has given it to us." 

The language of the Liber Angeli is so plainly reproduced in the memorandum (16 »°}) made in 
1004 by Maelsuthain on behalf of Brian the Ard-Righ, as to justify the inference that this was the 
document (or at least one of the documents) produced on that occasion to convince the King of the 
Primatial rights of Armagh. From it comes the epithet " Aposlolica" applied as above to the city; 
the addition "quae Scotice nominalur Ardd Machae" almost repeats the words of the Angel (p. 40 3, 1. 18). 
So too the "fructus laboris sui" echoes those of an earlier part of the Colloquy (p. 40 a); and the 
" baptismus, causae, eleemosynae,^'' we find in p. 40 a, 1. 14 ; b, 1. 34 ; 41 a, 1. s etsqq. ; 42 b, 1. 9 et sqq. But the 
opening phrase of the memorandum {"S. Patricius tens ad caelum") seems to have been suggested 
by those of the colophon that follows the Confessio (p. 48), " Translatus est Patricius ad caelos." 

To the Liber Angeli two notes are appended (p. 42 b\ each after a small inter- 
space. — The first is a ritual direction for a Lord's Day Office to be used in 
visiting the Church known as Fertae Marlar{see Muirchu, 6 v" b, 1. 1 1). It connects 
itself therefore with the closing paragraph of the first part of the "Liber," which 
describes the Lord's Day resort of the " Three Orders" and the other "Religiosi" 
to their respective Churches in the city. — The second (which overflows from p. 42 b 
to 43 a) records the friendship of St. Patrick for St. Brigid, and his acknowledgment 
of the independence {"monarchia") of her " paruchia'^ within her " provincia" — 
i.e. Kildare, or at most, North Leinster — while he reserves to himself the Churches 
situated in "the East or the West" of her jurisdiction, omitting all mention of 
the South. Thus this note has its place here, in relation to the general assertion 
of the supremacy of Armagh put forward in the Liber, and defined in the Decrees 
of its second Part, as limiting that claim in favour of the rights of St. Brigid and 
her jurisdiction. 

1 So "Arde^sco^," Preface to Fiacc's Hymn (Z. H., i., p. 96). 

" The date to which Zimmer (p. 83) assigns it seems to be too early by at least a generation. 


CONTENTS OF THE MS.— continued. 


Immediately after the Liber Angeli with its appendages (probably the latest 
of the Patrician Documents), there follows (p. 43 a, 1. 8) — marked off by but a 
narrow interspace, and with no conspicuous or elaborate initial letter — that which 
is beyond comparison the first of them in authority and value, as well, as in date, 
the famous Con/essio of St. Patrick, his autobiographical defence of his labours 
in Ireland, which occupies the rest (pp. 41— 48) of the Patrician division of ourMS. 
The heading prefixed to it, *' Incipiunt Libri S. Patricii" seems to imply 
that our scribe intended to add to it the Epistola, the only other Latin writing 
generally accepted as from Patrick ; but if so, he has not carried out his intention. 
Nor has he given us the Con/essio in full. This copy of the document, though the 
oldest extant, is by no means the only one : several others are forthcoming, all 
of much later date, of which most are unmutilated.^ On comparing it with these 
three, we find that it lacks several portions of matter which they agree in 
exhibiting, — some of them large, most of them full of interest, — all of which, in 
style and substance, bear the unmistakable character of genuineness, and are to 
be assigned to the same author as the rest of the work.^ It is impossible to 
maintain that these portions, or any of them, are interpolations from which our 
MS. is free. They are beyond doubt authentic parts of the Con/essio ; and the only 
question to be solved is. How came our ms. to omit them ?' 

Some uphold the view that these portions were missing from the exemplar 
followed by our scribe, which he seems to have believed to be the Saint's 
original autograph, — "the volume" (he says in his colophon, p. 48) "which 
Patrick wrote with his own hand." Yet he has unconsciously left evidence 
that it was but a transcript, and a faulty one, though probably of early 
date. For in his margin he has repeatedly (ten times in all) noted his uncer- 
tainty as to the text before him by placing (as elsewhere in the ms.) the letter z, 
adding in two instances (pp. 44 «, 45 a) the remark '■^ incertus liber.'" These 
notes have been alleged as tokens that his archetype was in parts mutilated or 

1 See for these. Dr. White's edition, Libri S. Fatricii (to which the sectional numbers in this Chapter 
refer), pp. 203-205. The two mutilated copies, so far as their text extends, show no such omissions as 
our MS. 

* These passages are printed in full in Appendix E. 

3 One of these, as noted above, p. xlix, note ", is actually referred to by Tirechan. 

K 2 


decayed. But on examining the places where they occur, we find that in most 
cases they show — not that he was unable to read what was before him, but — 
that he failed to understand what he read. His difficulty lay sometimes in an 
unfamiliar word {e.g. " exagallias,^^ in p. 45 a, 1. 19), but sometimes it must be 
understood as due to an error in his exemplar. Thus z is set over against 
^^ serorem'^ (for sero rememorarem), p. 43 b,\. i; '^ exaliue" (for ex saliua), p. 44 a, 
1. 25 ; " deeritis'" (for desertus [diserius]), p. 44(5, I. 6. None of these mistakes 
is shared by the later mss., which therefore must have been ultimately derived 
from an exemplar different from that which our ms. represents. In but two 
instances is an omission noted by the z — (i) that of p. 46 «, 1. 34, where, in the 
curtailment of a citation from Scripture, the opening words ("£i iterum post 
annos") of the sentence which follows it have been suffered to drop out, leaving 
the text unintelligible; — and (2) that of the last column (p. 48^?, 1. 24), where the 
preposition secundum stands unaccountably alone, without its necessary comple- 
ment — the " Dei placiium,''^ which the other mss. subjoin. In no case does a z 
mark the place of occurrence of one of the larger omissions which are peculiar to 
our MS. We infer that these omissions — none of them inconsiderable, and their 
total exceeding one-third of the whole text — were intentionally made by our 
scribe, or the scribe of his exemplar, with the purpose of abridgment. 

Dr. White has endeavoured to account for them (Z. .S*. P., p. 206) by supposing that our scribe's 
exemplar consisted of small folios, each page containing matter equivalent to five or six lines (of his 
edition), of which several were lost, here and there ; thus leaving lacunae in the text, which, in length, 
would be represented by multiples of 5 or 6, — and that this exemplar, thus imperfect, was " copied 
into the official Armagh repertory," not as a complete text, but because it was all that remained of 
St. Patrick's reputed autograph. The figures which denote the lengths of the several lacunae agree 
fairly well with this ingenious hypothesis ; but it is open to the objection that loss of several leaves 
would inevitably betray itself by breaks, not merely in the chain of thought or narrative, but in the 
structure of sentences, such as that above noted in p. 46 a, — which the scribe would mark, as he has 
done in that place, with his z. 

However, in accepting the view that he has omitted in order to abridge, 
we cannot commend the judgment shown in his omissions. His dealing with 
the text might be excused if by it he proposed to present only so much of 
it as seemed to him of biographical value, or edifying, — and possibly to suppress 
passages which might tend to decrease of reverence for the Saint by showing 
him in his weaknesses. But, in fact, he has retained not a little that is of 
secondary importance, and excluded some facts of interest and many character- 
istic utterances. 

Even as thus curtailed, however — but much more when exhibited in its 
fulness — the Con/essio is a precious memorial of the man, his work, and his times. 
To vindicate its genuineness is needless : it attests itself, and no competent critic 
now doubts that it is what it professes to be. Indeed there is no excuse for the 
attempts that have been made in the not very remote past to brand it as spurious, 
nor even for the contempt with which some treat it, as an illiterate and inane 


production. Its many defects of style and construction, its rambling diffuse- 
ness, its rude and often barbarous Latinity, are just what one might expect from 
one who had passed his youth under the circumstances it describes, and who 
wrote in consciousness of his lack of education and skill in language, — not to 
satisfy critical readers, but to assert his mission and its results. The Con/essio is 
a protest against censures on his conduct which he feels to be unjust and repels 
with pain and indignation. The personal note that pervades it, though at the 
expense of coherence, brings the man and his circumstances before us, with a 
vividness that not even a skilled contemporary biographer — such as he who gave 
the Church the Life of St. Martin — could attain. It is in self-vindication, and 
not with historic purpose, that Patrick puts forward the facts of his life, his 
calling, and his work, — not in ordered narration, but disjointed, and interrupted 
by long professions of faith, of self-reproach, and of thanksgiving ; — all the more 
convincing, therefore, in their freshness, and their tacit appeal to his readers as 
to those who knew him and can attest or verify what he claims to be and to have 
done. Nothing could be less like a forgery or a fiction than this Con/essio ; it is 
the genuine and spontaneous effusion of one who feels that he has been treated 
with misrepresentation and contumely, and smarts under the wrong. 

The character, therefore, of this document stamps value on the writer's 
statements as true ; while its irregularity of form makes it necessary to collect 
and arrange them, in order to judge definitely how much of St. Patrick's history 
comes to us on his own authority, and to check by them the narratives of Muirchu 
and Tirechan, and of later writers. 

He introduces himself as the son of one Calpurnius, a deacon, who was the son 
of Potitus, a presbyter,^ who [apparently Calpurnius] belonged to a "«?c«s" named 
*' Bannauem Taberniae" and had a country dwelling (" uillula ") hard by. There 
he was captured, and carried with thousands of other captives into Ireland. He 
was then in his sixteenth year, and "was ignorant of the true God" {s. i); but 
in his captivity he was brought, by God's grace, to turn to repentance, and to 
confession of the Faith {s. 2). It is clear that the conversion^ thus recorded was 
not from heathenism — for, as we have seen, he was of Christian family — but from a 
state of un mindfulness and forgetfulness of God, Thus, through a careless boyhood, 
and a youth passed in bondage among aliens (apparently heathens), he grew up, 
as was inevitable, in ignorance and illiteracy. In consciousness of his deficien- 
cies, it is with reluctance and fear that he attempts to write a defence of himself, 
knowing that in so doing he exposes his lack of education to the eyes of 
unfriendly readers who questioned his mission, — men trained "in civil law and in 
the Scriptures" (s. 9). In order to deprecate their contempt, he has prefaced 
his Apologia by the autobiographic facts above recounted, — to explain that 
his admitted want of culture implied neither meanness of birth nor culpable 

' The margin of MS. adds the name of " Odissus" as father of Potitus, leaving it doubtful to which the 
title "presbyter" belongs. 

'' For confirmarem of our MS., conuerterem is to be read (see White's note in loc. ). 


But it is not enough thus to clear himself of blame for his lack of education : 
he feels bound to justify himself for having entered, thus uneducated, on the 
work of evangelization — by showing his call to that work, and the success that 
had attested his mission ; how the same grace that drew him to God in his 
youth, sent and enabled him in his manhood to draw many to Him {ss. 12-15). 
And this he proceeds to set forth in the personal narrative into which he 

The inward change that had been wrought in him through the trying years of 
his captivity, led him {s. 16), while tending, amid much hardship, the flocks^ of the 
master whose bondsman he had become, to pray unceasingly, and thus to increase 
in faith, and in the fear and love of God. His spiritual fervour roused him 
before daybreak for his devotions; and in his sleep voices came to him with super- 
natural reassurances {s. 17). The first cheered him by promise of speedy restora- 
tion to his home ; the second informed him that a ship was ready for his escape. 
On this prompting he fled, after six years of bondage, guided by God through 
a country and people that he knew not, for about " two hundred miles " ; 
found the promised ship ready to sail, and asked leave to join it. The shipmaster 
at first refused, and the fugitive withdrew ; repulsed, but praying as he went : the 
crew recalled him, and he went on board — not without misgivings, inasmuch as 
they were heathens, yet with the hope of winning some of them to the faith of 
Christ. In three days they reached land — whether Gaul or Britain he has not 
told us,^ — but a land so uninhabited that in twenty-eight days' wandering they 
met no man and no means of renewing their exhausted stores of food. At the 
reproachful appeal of the shipmaster, Patrick prayed to his God for relief. His 
prayer was effectual : forthwith a herd of swine fell in the way of the famishing 
men, of which they killed so many as to supply ample food for themselves " and 
their dogs."^ They found wild honey also; but of it the Saint, learning that it 
was regarded as an offering to their gods,* refused to partake' [ss. 18, 19). That 
night there followed the well-known incident of his agonizing dream, his cry 
(prompted, as he believed, by the Spirit) of "Helias" and the sunrise^ that 
dispelled it (s. 20). 

Though his shipmates, after their experience of the power of his prayer, 
treated him with honour, and offered thanks to his God, he regarded himself as 

1 " Pecora" not greges ; probably of sheep — not swine (as in Muirchu ii., c. 15). Cp. s. 10, where we 
have " gxex ^orcorum." 

^ But see next note. 

3 Here Dr. Olden [Church of Ireland, pp. 16, 17 ; 1892) offers the very probable explanation that these 
dogs were Celtic wolf-hounds, and formed an important portion of the ship's cargo, such animals being 
highly valued, and exported abroad from the British islands. He refers to Arrian, Cynegeticus, cc. I., II. — 
Accepting this, we are led to infer that Gaul rather than Britain was the ship's destination. 

1 " Immolaticum " ; cp. i Cor. viii. 7 (O. L., tdolis immolatum ; Vg., idolothytuni). 

'Here we first meet with the Saint's characteristic exclamation, Deo gratias; as afterwards, s. 23 
ei I>assim. Cp. Muirchu I., c. 24, for his " graizacham." 

« The suggestion that there is here a play on the similar words Helias, Helios, seems highly 
improbable. There is no reason to believe that Patrick knew any Greek beyond the "curie lession" 
(p. 17 b). 


their prisoner, and his involuntary sojourn with them as a renewed "captivity."' 
Accordingly the divine Voice again reached him, with the comforting promise 
that his detention should last for but "two months"; and so "on the sixtieth 
night the Lord delivered him" {s. 21). 

The readings of the mss. vary so as to introduce uncertainty here; but the writer's statement seems 
to be that, after sixty days spent with the ship's crew (whether reckoned from the time when he heard 
the Voice, or, as seems more probable, from the day of sailing, more than a month earlier, is not 
made clear), he made his escape. Three days they spent at sea ; twenty-eight in the desert country ; 
two they rested ; then they pursued their journey, finding, by God's providence, food, fire, and shelter'' 
for ten [or fourteen] days more, until they reached [their destination]. — If with most mss. we read 
" donee peruenimus homines" (for omnes of our text), we must understand the meaning to be " until we 
reached the abodes of men " (j. 22). But the " food, fire, and shelter " they had been finding for some 
days before seems to imply that they were traversing an inhabited country during these days. The 
explanation may be that, for those ten (or fourteen) days, they found human habitations so sparse that 
any chance of supplying their wants seemed a special boon of Providence,— in fact, their food was 
exhausted before the close of the last of these days {ib.), when their hardships were terminated by 
their reaching a fully-peopled region — perhaps a town. A few days after, the "sixty days" were over, 
and he was enabled to leave them. 

Whither he went after his second escape, we are left to guess ; the notes of 
time are vague, and no note of place is given. 

After an interval (how long, or how spent, he has not told us) of " a few 
years," we find him {s. 23) in Britain with his parents. They were urgent with 
him to stay and leave them no more : but influences higher than the strongest 
promptings of nature were at work to send him forth. In a dream, there came to 
. him the vision of a man from Ireland, by name Victoricus, who gave him a letter, 
of which he read the opening words, "The voice 0/ the men of Ireland.'''' As he 
read, the Voice seemed to make itself inwardly heard, as uttered by those 
that dwelt " by the wood of Foclut which is by the western sea," crying, 
" We beseech thee, holy youth, come and moreover walk among us."' This 
cry so penetrated his heart that he could read no more, and thus he awoke. 
How he came to recognize that the Voice came from the region named, or 
whether he had any previous knowledge of it — a district on the north-west coast 
of farthest Connaught — we are not told. But we know that it is the sole place in 
Ireland which he mentions by name in his writings, and that his biographers 
(though varying as to particulars) all agree in representing this dream as having 

' The opening sentence of s. 21 {" Et iterum ^ost annos muUos adhuc capturam dedi") has been 
taken by many, including Muirchu (see above, pp. xx, xxi) and as well as Probus and the authors of the 
Vitae generally, to convey that, after this sojourn with the ship's crew, he was again taken captive, and 
after the short term of sixty days, again escaped. But the true meaning is certainly as above given, that 
his detention by his shipmates, even if not unfriendly, was against his will, and therefore a " captivity." 
The singular phrase " cajiiuram dedi" obviously refers back to s. 4, where it is used in recording the 
"captivity" into which he was carried from his home as a youth of sixteen: a second, and further, 
" captivity" befell him when he found himself compelled by these men to make one of them, and forcibly 
withheld from seeking his home. 

'Or "dry weather" {" szccitafem"), 

' Or, "Come and walk among us as before." — The adverb {"adhuc") has the same force as in "adhuc 
cafturam dedi" (j. 21). This rendering, however, would imply that Patrick had visited the SiluaFocluti 
before the time of this vision, which can hardly be admitted, seeing that he appears to have spent his six 
years of bondage entirely in north-eastern Ulster {s. 17). See below, note S on p. xci. 


given the first impulse to his zeal for his mission to Ireland. And we know, 
farther, that he regarded it as fulfilled in the success of the Gospel he preached 
in those remote districts : " Thank God," is the exclamation of his latter years as 
he recalls the vision of his youth, "that, after very many years. He vouchsafed 
to them according to their cry" {ib.). 

Nor was this the only supernatural intimation that he experienced. In the 
dreams of another night, he was conscious of a prayer uttered — but " whether 
within me or beside me, I know not: God knows" — in words of which, though 
the dreamer heard them, he understood only the last, — " He who gave His life 
for thee. He it is that speaks in thee" {s. 24). — And yet again, he "saw within 
himself One that prayed," and "heard how He prayed over me, that is, over 
the inner man, mightily, and with groanings," and how finally "He declared 
Himself to be the Spirit,"^ fulfilling His office of intercession {s. 25). 

So far his self-vindication continues to bear narrative form : it consists in the 
record — as before of the outward adversities which caused his lack of culture, so 
here of the inward experiences which he believed to be his call to the work of an 
evangelist. But after this he becomes digressive and scarcely coherent in his 
Apologia. A conscious autobiographer would have proceeded to relate in order 
when, where, and how he obtained his training, his ordination and mission, and 
what cause led him to return as an evangelist to the land whither he had been 
carried as a slave and whence he had departed as a fugitive. But instead, he turns 
aside — naturally, as writing for those who knew those facts and needed no recital 
of them — to speak in indignant complaint of the hindrance and injustice which 
had thwarted his work. Opposition had been raised against him, apparently not at 
the time of his consecration as Bishop, but on some later occasion ;^ and the form 
it took was a peculiarly painful one. A person unnamed, his "dearest friend," 
to whom in early life, before his diaconate, he had, in a season of spiritual 
depression, confided a fact of his boyhood, the sin of an hour of weakness 
before he was fifteen years of age, basely disclosed this secret' to certain 
^^ Senior es^' (prelates no doubt), who appear to have taken upon them to inquire 
into his fitness for the mission which he had undertaken in Ireland. Yet this 
same unstable friend had previously, in Patrick's absence, pleaded in his favour 
(in Britain,* as is implied); and again, when they were together, had predicted 
his future elevation to the Episcopate. That after this he should turn against 
him, and publicly put him to shame, was a cruel shock.* By what right these 

' For e;piscopus of MS., read S^iritus (see White's note in loco). 

' Conclusive in favour of this view is his complaint that the hostility was directed "contra lahoriosum 
episcopatum meum" which implies that he had already done active service as a Bishop before his fitness- 
was called in question. 

' It is not said that, as some have assumed, the secret was told sub sigillo confessionis . 

* "Ego non interfui, nee in Britanniis eram" {s. 32). 

^ Unwarranted inferences have been drawn as to the nature of the sin alleged. The terms in which he 
refers to it would apply to an act of falsehood, or dishonesty, or violence, as well as to one of impurity 
such as some {e.g., Zimmer, p. 43) have assumed to be indicated. We are only assured that it was a single 
transgression, done in a heedless moment, before his religious conversion had enlightened his conscience 
and strengthened his moral nature [s. z-j). 


Seniores claimed to be his judges, we are not informed^ ; as to that he raises no 
question. On the charge so advanced, though it dated thirty years back (whether 
reckoned to the time of the sin, or to that of the confession, is not clear), 
they appear to have passed judgment against him in his absence {ss. 26, 27). His 
first impulse was to submit to their sentence, and give way to despair (s. 26). 
Disallowed {'Weprobatus" )hy them, he was on the point of abandoning his charge, 
and (as he believed) imperilling his salvation, when — that very night — comfort was 
sent to him once more in a vision {s. 29). He saw his own face, with a writing 
set against it, in which his episcopal style was withheld from him, — declaring, as 
it seemed, the judgment of the Seniores. But then he. heard a divine Utterance, 
disannulling the sentence that professed to depose him from his office. " We have 
seen the face with displeasure" (the Voice said); " [we who have been] designated 
by name stript [of the title of Bishop]."^ The singular graciousness of these 
words of divine sympathy ('* He said not, ' Thou hast seen,' but ' We have seen,' 
as though He joined me with Himself," writes the Saint, ib.) raised him from 
dejection, and sent him back to his mission, reassured of his call to it, and 
conscious of renewed strength for its fulfilment {s. 30). That reassurance (he 
affirms) he has justified, and that mission he has carried out, by bearing "to 
many tribes" the gift of the new birth, by ordaining clergy everywhere for " the 
people who had newly attained belief" {s. 38), and by preaching the Gospel to 
the utmost bound {^"usque ubi nemo ultra est" ss. 34, 51). 

He forbears to relate at length what things he has done and suffered in the 
fulfilment of his great charge. Incidentally he speaks of farther captivity, — of 
indignities, imprisonment, spoiling of goods, perils which on twelve occasions 
threatened his life {ss. 35, 37). All these he willingly endured, as he had willingly 
sacrificed country and parents, and the privileges of his gentle birth, — his whole 
self, his very life unto the death {^^ me et ingenuitatem meam . . . etiam animam meam 
. . . usque ad mortem" ss. 36, 37), — for the welfare of others, and for His Name 
whom he serves. Yet he admits there are within him natural longings to revisit 
his parents and his country (here incidentally implying that it was Britain), and 
to proceed to Gaul, which land must have been familiar to him, for he speaks of 
greeting his brethren and seeing the faces of the Saints there {s. 43). But the 
very success of his mission forbids him to leave it. He cannot forsake the 
people of Ireland, who, before he came to them, had no knowledge of God; 
in whom had been fulfilled to him, as to the Apostles at Pentecost, the promise 
given by the mouth of the Prophet Joel {s. 40), inasmuch as he had been 
enabled so to reclaim them from "idols and abominations" {s. 41) that they 
should be " the people of the Lord, the sons of God." He glories in the sons 
and daughters of nobles and princes whom he has drawn to give themselves as 
"monks and virgins" to Christ i^b.). On the case of one of these he dwells, 

^ Probably under the rule laid down in Canon xiv. of the Council of Antioch, and elsewhere. 

"Though this passage is obscure {" Scriptum erat contra faciem meam sine honore .... Tnale 
uidimus faciem designati nudato nomine"), its general purport is plainly as above given. Designate 
seems to be nom. pi., rather than gen, sing. 



a maiden high-born and fair, who was distinguished above the rest by the 
alacrity of her obedience to the divine Voice that called her to become " a virgin 
of Christ." Many others, in growing numbers, with like faith, endure rebuke and 
persecution from their parents ; some have even been cast into slavery, and live 
under terror and threats {s. 42). The Spirit within forbids him to forsake these for 
the sake of human ties ; his own mind shrinks from the risk of losing his labour ; 
Christ, who bade him go to them, bids him stay with them for the rest of 
his days ; to depart from them would be to sin against Him {s. 43). He is 
self-distrustful because of weakness, instability, and failure to attain the perfect 
life ; yet he is conscious of growth in the love and fear of God ; and he relies 
on the "signs and wonders ministered to him by the Lord" — the supernatural 
intimations which conveyed his call and guaranteed his success ; — and relying 
on these he elects to remain and to persevere {s. 44). Those who will may 
jeer, or whisper disparagement behind his back. Their contempt is but for 
his illiteracy, which he owns; but his renewed faith assures him of the grace 
which was in him all along, and he finds it sufficient for him {ss. 45, 46). 

In all this self-disclosure — in reverting to the censures which had so grievously 
tried him, and to the messages of approval and help from above, which had 
strengthened him to work on — he allows us to discern the occasion which drew 
from him the Confessio. The hostility to him and his mission still survived. 
" The whole tone of the Confessio implies" (as Dr. White has justly pointed out^) 
that among the Christians of Ireland there were some, probably belonging to 
regions which the Gospel had reached before Patrick's coming, who sympathised 
with the adverse spirit that was manifested against him by the Seniores of Britain. 
Apparently some fresh manifestation of that spirit had reawakened his misgivings 
as to his own fitness for his high calling, and thus led him to reassure himself 
by a retrospect of his life and work, such as he has here given, to be read by 
all who through him had been brought to believe and to fear God {s. 62). He 
seems to have heard, — or in his sensitiveness to have apprehended, — hints of 
unworthy motives underlying his zeal, of voluntary bounties received from the 
brethren and virgin sisters who had given themselves to Christ, and from devout 
women who offered their jewels on the altar. These he Indignantly refutes. 
Such gifts he had always returned to the donors, though by so doing he had given 
offence. Like St. Paul, whose language (Acts xx. 33 ; 2 Cor. xi. 7-9, xll. 14, 15) 
he echoes, and whose example he evidently had in view, he challenges galnsayers 
to show that from any one of all the many thousands whom he has converted he 
has accepted "one half-scruple" as payment, or that from any one of all the clergy 
whom he has everywhere ordained he has asked "so much as the price of his 
shoes" {ss. 49, 50). If it be so, he bids them "speak, and I will repay it" — nay, 
he goes on to affirm that, for their sakes to- whom he ministered, he has freely, 
and of his own accord, spent of his own. It has been his practice, he says, 
to give gifts to the chiefs through whose territories he passed, and to make 

' L. S.P., p. 229, 


payments to their sons who escorted him and his company. The amount disbursed' 
by him to these for such service, he reckons to amount to " the price of fifteen 
slaves" {ss. 52, 53). And here he throws a sidelight on the state of the country 
traversed by him, and the habits of its rulers. They whose goodwill and pro- 
tection he supposed himself to have purchased, on one occasion seized him 
and his followers, intending to put him to death — laid hands on their goods, 
and threw him into chains. But by God's grace, through the intervention of 
friends whom he had previously secured, he obtained release after fourteen days, 
and restitution of the property plundered. All these things he has willingly 
borne, and will bear in the future, even to the uttermost. He is ready to yield 
his body to a violent death, to be torn by the beasts and birds of prey, in the 
sure hope of his resurrection in glory. And thus, kindling at the close into 
something of eloquence, with a final acknowledgment of his own unworthiness, 
and of the gift of God which had enabled him for his work, he ends his Con/essio, 
at once the apology for his mission and the declaration of his faith. 

One rises from a study of this document with mingled feelings : — on the one 
hand, of appreciation of its worth as a frank revelation of the inmost self of one 
who did a great work, and of the motives that inspired it ; — on the other, of 
disappointment at its meagreness of detail, and its absolute silence about many 
matters on which we crave for information. In its opening, indeed, the facts of 
his origin and early youth, down to his escape from his detention among the 
ship's crew, are related, though discursively, yet with sufficient definiteness. 
But in the body of the Con/essio, the facts do not follow in regular order or 
connexion ; for the most part they are but mentioned here and there, as if 
known to the reader, — sometimes merely hinted at, as if the writer shrank from 
the pain of putting them into words. Thus we are left to gather or infer them, 
and piece them together into continuity as best we may. We perceive at every 
turn that we have before us, as has been said above, not an autobiography, 
but an Apologia embodying autobiographical matter ; — and moreover, that the 
presence of such matter is not due to historic purpose on the writer's part, but to 
his eagerness to vindicate his character and his mission. The very first sentence 
of his opening shows what it is that moves him to write. He is aware that "very 
many hold him in contempt," because he had been a slave, and is illiterate. 
Hence the assertion of his gentle birth {s. 37), with which is to be read the state 
ment of his father's rank as " decurio" {Epist., s. id); hence also the narrative 
of the captivity in which his youth was passed, — out of reach of book-learning, 
but full of spiritual experiences and divine consolations, such as (he implies) to 
endue him with a fitness, and empower him by a call, more than sufficient to 
compensate for whatever his gainsayers could point out as lacking to him. 

But the blanks in the record, even so far as it takes a narrative form, are 
many and serious. Large periods of his life are left wholly unaccounted for ; 
there is no reference to contemporary persons or events whence we might 

L 2 


determine his date. He tells us neither from what Church he derived his Orders 
and mission, nor from whom, or where, he acquired such Latinity as he possesses, 
and the familiarity with Holy Scripture which appears in this document and in his 
Epistola — the only other Latin writing of his which has reached us. And though 
he has been precise in stating the place of abode of his family, it was matter 
of difficulty, even in the time of his earliest biographer, to identify the ulcus he 
names (Muirchu i., c. i., p. 443 a, in/r.). 

Notes of time are hardly to be expected in a writing such as this, beyond those 
that are to be found in his style and diction, or in the form of hints indicative of 
the manners and material conditions of life existing in Britain and Ireland when 
the writer lived — none of which can be absolutely trusted as conclusive. 

The writer lived at a time when, though the monastic life was held in esteem («. 41, 42), celibacy 
was not enforced on the secular Clergy {s. i); and when the Roman municipal organization still 
existed in Britain (note the word uicus, ih. ; and decurio, as above), and the Roman provincial divisions of 
the country were still recognized (as is implied by the plural Britanniae, passim). These facts point to 
a period not later than the fifth century. In the Epistola, two farther facts have been noted as pointing 
the same way, — that the Picts' are twice described as "apostate" {ss. 2, 15), and that the Franks were 
still heathen {s. 14).* Moreover, it has been urged that, in their frequent citations of the Scriptures, both 
these documents follow some form of the Old Latin, and therefore belong to a time before Jerome's 
Vulgate had come into use in the West.^ Yet, even if it could be established that our author used an 
Old-Latin Bible exclusively, it would not be safe to conclude that he wrote before, or soon after, 
Jerome ; for it is certain that Old-Latin Versions remained in common use, simultaneously with 
Jerome's, so late as the time of Pope Gregory the Great {ob. 604), — not to speak of the evidence 
of MSS. which show transcripts or intermixtures of Old Latin in much later times. 

But though the Con/essio gives no sure indication of its date, the author, in 
the narrative of his early life, incidentally supplies many notes of time to mark 
the stages of his course, and determine what may be called its inner chronology. 
His age (sixteen) when captured [s. i), and (by inference, s. 17) his age (twenty- 
two) when he escaped, are clearly given : even the three days' sail from the Irish 
shore to the place where the ship reached land, the twenty-eight days' wandering, 
the two days' rest, the total of sixty days spent by him with the ship's crew 

' Probably the master whom Patrick served was of this race ; for according to Muirchu (l., c. ii) his 
abode was within the " Cruidnenorum fines.''' 

^ See for these points Dr. Whitley Stokes in Introd. to V. T., p. ci. 

3 See Dr. White's discussion of this subject, L. S.P., pp. 230-233, 301 et sqq. It is to be added here 
that in Patrick's citations from the Psalter there are evidences of his familiarity with Jerome's first version — 
the "Roman" (R) which was in earlier use in the Church, rather than with his second version, which 
has since superseded it — the "Gallican" (G). Such are — 

Conf., s. 5. " Inuoca me indie tribulationis tuae et liber abo te e^ magnificabis me," Ps. xlix. 15. 

Here R agrees in inserting tuae et, which G omits ; and in reading magnificabis for which G gives 
honorificabis . [For libe>'abo,R ha.s eripiam ; G eruam. ; Jerome's version from Hebr. alone agrees as to 

lb., s. 7. " Perdes eos qui . . .", Ps. v. 7. 

So R ; G gives " Perdes omnes qui ..." 

lb., s. 55. "facta cogitatum tuum in Deum." 

R, "facta in Deum cogitatum tuum. " ; but G, "facta super dominum curam iuam.." 

If the introduction into Gaul of the so-called " Gallican " Psalter is rightly ascribed to Gregory of 
Tours, in the latter half of the sixth century, the use of the " Roman" in the Con/essio is consistent with 
its fifth-century origin to which the evidence points, as above shown. 


{ss. 19-22), — all are stated with precision ; but the interval between his escape 

and his taking ship is left for us to guess by his rough estimate of the distance 

traversed as two hundred miles {s. 17).' Thenceforward, his measures of time are 

expressed in vague phrases. After his "delivery from the hands" of the crew, 

there intervened "a few years" [s. 23) before, in revisiting his home, he found 

himself placed in a strait between his parents' [or kindred's] urgency to retain 

him there, and the divine Vision and Voice which then summoned him to the 

work of evangelizing Ireland. Thence ensued an inward conflict, so intense that 

his spirit well-nigh fainted under it {s. 28). How long it lasted he has not told 

us : the Confessio passes here from narrative into indignant protest. But the lapse 

of many years is implied ; for, though he tells us neither at what time, whence, 

or by whom he was sent as a Bishop and missionary to Ireland, in the next 

scene of his life he appears as such, forced to make answer to certain gainsayers 

of his "laborious Episcopate" {s. 26). Yet even here he drops an incidental 

word that helps towards measuring the number of those years. The cruelty of 

those who, at the time of that scene, had urged against him the boyish sin of 

his fifteenth year, was aggravated by the fact that the charge was made " after 

thirty years" {s. 27). As has been noted above, it may be questioned whether 

these years are reckoned from the time of the sin or from the time when, just 

before his ordination as Deacon (which cannot have been earlier than two or 

three years after his escape from his "second captivity"), he confided it to a 

faithless friend. If the former alternative were adopted, his age at the time 

spoken of would have been forty-five ; but if we are right in preferring the latter, 

he must have been over fifty. In either case, the fact is clear that, whereas 

in 55. 23—25 we leavehim in a strait between two contending influences, undecided 

as to his course in life, in ^. 26 we find him a Bishop, long engaged in evangelic 

labours. Farther, it may be taken as certain that no small part of the interval 

between that escape and his entrance on the work of an evangelist must have 

been spent in study before he acquired the intimate knowledge of the Scriptures, 

both of the Old and of the New Testament, already noted — which is in his 

writings as conspicuous as is the imperfection of his literary culture.^ This 

period of study and preparation must be allowed for if one attempts to construct 

a tentative chronology' of his pre-Hibernian life, or to assign the dates of 

his consecration as Bishop, and of the censure passed on him in Britain. — After 

' Probably Roman miles ; 200 of which would = about 184 statute miles. 

"^ Dr. White {L.S.P., pp. 300 etsqq.) has given a full list of the Biblical quotations in the Confessio and 
Efistola, and an Index to them (pp. 322-324). Moreover, at foot of each page of his text he has noted the 
Biblical references, and in the text he has indicated them by italics. Thus, a simple inspection of his pages 
will suffice to show the wide extent of Patrick's knowledge of the Scriptures. Many of these references are 
not express quotations ; most of them are mere instances of the use, probably not always conscious, of 
Scriptural language ; a few perhaps doubtful. Yet it was well worth while to exhibit to the eye, as 
Dr. White has done, the extent to which the religious thought of the Saint was saturated with the spirit of 
the Latin Bible, and his diction drawn from its language— the book from the study of which evidently he had 
acquired such Latinity as he possessed, not improbably the only Latin book with which he was familiar, 

' Many such have been offered, as, e.g., those given on pp. 16 5, 30 5. Both of these allow several 
years spent in reading, — ("xxx [xl] annas legit"). 


this, we find no farther indication of his age at that time of trial, or when he 
wrote. He seems to speak of the attack as by no means a recent fact ; he 
reviews a long course of successful activity in the work of the Gospel, after 
that check down to the time of writing ; he describes himself as one " in old 
age " (^. lo). But nothing definite can safely be inferred from a word so 
indeterminate. His tone is certainly that of a man still vigorous, capable of 
years of continued activity ; and though he writes of the near approach of his 
end, he seems to anticipate a death by violence rather than by natural decay. 
But, on the whole, his attitude is valedictory; of retrospect rather than of 
prospect : and one closes the book with the impression that one has read the 
words of an old man's latter years.^ 

The notes of place, as has been remarked above, though somewhat more 
definite, are far from adequate. The ^^ ulcus of Bannauem Taberniae" to which 
he tells us his father belonged, has not yet been identified with certainty ; and 
though Muirchu affirms that he has ascertained it to be " Uenire,'" i., c. i (p. 443 a, 
in/r.), he but answers one question by raising another. A case has been made 
out^ for Daventry (grounded on the suggested emendation, Bannauenta Britanmae). 
Others have sought it in Britanny. Two passages (again) in the Epistola {ss. 2,11) 
where Patrick seems to class himself as fellow -citizen with the subjects of 
Coroticus, whom Muirchu {tit. 29, p. 40 a, infr.) entitles King of Ail {^Wegem 
A too"), give ground for believing that he belonged either to Dumbarton on the 
Clyde^ (if "Ait" is Ait CtuaidK), or, as is perhaps more probable, to some place 
in South Wales, if Coroticus is rightly assumed to be the Caredig who, in the 
fifth century, held and gave his name (still surviving in Cardigan) to that region, 
— and carried on hostilities against the Irish.* This hypothesis, if adopted, 
would add to the probability, in itself strong, that Bannauenta Berniae (assuming 
that to be the true reading of the name of the uicus) is to be sought in the region 
known as Gwent (the Uenta of the Romans), including Glamorgan and Monmouth- 

For the rest, the Saint's Con/essio is devoid of local indications. He merely 
states that his captors carried him to Ireland, but gives no hint whence it 
can be inferred what part of the island was the scene of his bondage ; nor 
does he tell us at what point of the coast he took ship after his escape and 
journey of two hundred miles — nor (again) at what point of it he landed 
when he returned as a herald of the Gospel ; nor where he opened his mission. 

' For the probable date (461) of his death, see above, p. xlvii. The year there fixed on (after Tirechan 1., 
p. 17 b, infr. [as corrected]) is confirmed by Ann. Ult., s.a. 461 (t. I., p. 18), — " Htc alii quietem Patricii 
esse dicuni." It seems likely that he was born about 390, which would make 406 the year of his capture, 
and 412 of his escape. If then we assume that his diaconate was two or three years after that (414-15), the 
interference of the Seniores is to be assigned to 444-5, some eleven or twelve years after his arrival in 
Ireland as Bishop (which may be confidently dated 432-3), and seventeen or eighteen years before his end. 

' By Mr. E. B. Nicholson, in Acade-my for May, 1895, p. 402. 

' So the Scholiast on the Hymn of St. Fiacc (Z. H. I., p. 97 ; 11,, p. 176). 

^ See Meyrick, Hist, and Antiqq. of Cardigan, Introd., p. 18 ; quoted by Todd, St. Patrick, 
p. 352, note '. 


He nowhere mentions Slemish, or Sabhul, or Tara, or Cruachan Aighli, or 

Armagh. The only place in Ireland which he names is (as above noted) the 

'^ Silua Foclutif which is near the western sea" {s. 23); but he adds no word 

to explain why it was from thence that the call came which determined his 

after-course, or how he was able to recognize the voices as coming from the 

men of that region.' Neither Muirchu nor Tirechan, though (as we have seen) 

both of them record the incident with immaterial variations, nor any one of 

the subsequent chroniclers, has supplied the explanation; — nor (with few 

exceptions) have they yielded to the obvious temptation to represent the Wood 

in Tirawley, instead of the Dalaradian hillside, as the place where he tended 

his master's flocks.^ — In like manner he neither tells us what coast, British or 

Gaulish, the ship reached after its three-days' sail (5. 19), nor where he spent 

the "few years" {s. 23) before he revisited his parents in Britain. And the 

passing phrase in which he mentions Gaul {s. 43), while it implies that he had 

lived and made friends there, does not assign to his sojourn in that land its place 

in the record of his life. As regards the range of his evangelic labours, the only 

geographical determination he gives of it is conveyed in his thanksgiving that he 

had been enabled to respond to the summons from the Wood of Fochlath, and in 

the more general affirmation twice repeated that his mission had reached the 

utmost west of the island {ss. 34, 51). Beyond this, its extent is only implied in 

the reiterated mention of the "thousands" whom he claims — not of one tribe only, 

but of many — to have drawn from idolatry to the Christian Faith, and to have 

baptized ; among whom were reckoned sons and daughters of Chiefs and 

Princes {s. 41). Over what districts of Ireland his preaching prevailed, — whether 

of the clergy whom he ordained he raised any to the order of Bishop, — what 

locations he assigned to these clergy, or to the monks and virgins of whom he 

tells, a;nd whether these latter lived as solitaries or in communities, — in what 

regions he encountered his " twelve perils," and especially the attempt on his 

property and his life by his treacherous guides, — we vainly seek to learn from the 

Confessio. On none of these matters does it yield information, or even ground 

for plausible conjecture. Later writers have professed to supply the names of 

places and persons which Patrick has withheld, and to relate incidents which he 

has left untold, — and moreover to set the whole in something of a framework, 

topographical or chronological, or both. We have seen how far and on what 

^ Dr. White {ui su;pr., p. 224) accounts for the Saint's knowledge of the Silua Focluti and its people 
by the suggestion that the place where he took ship may have been on the Connaught coast. The distance 
from Slemish corresponds fairly (allowing for detours) with the assigned rough estimate of "two hundred 
[Roman] miles." But the statement that he found the ship on the point of sailing seems to exclude the 
supposition that he can have sojourned in the vicinity of his place of embarkation for any sufficient time to 
have become acquainted with the inhabitants and their speech. Moreover he would not be likely to flee 
westward — rather southward, in endeavouring to return to Britain. It is worth noting that the distance 
stated would equally suit the " Ostium Dee" in Wicklow. If it was at Ostium. Dee that he found the ship, 
we should have in the fact an explanation of his making for that port, as Muirchu states, when he returned to 
Ireland on his mission. It is well situated for sea traffic with South Wales and the Severn estuary. 

^ So Probus ( Vita V. af. Colgan, Tr. Th.), writing much later, substitutes Croagh Patrick (in Mayo) for 
Slemish in Antrim. 


lines his two earliest biographers have attempted to complete the picture of which 
he has left but the few imperfect outlines above noted. And we have offered 
reasons for accepting not a little of the details they add, as traditions certainly 
ancient and probably worthy in the main of credit, preserved in the Churches 
founded by him. But the Con/essio together with the Epistola, the unquestionably 
genuine works of his own hand, alone supply a test adequate so far as it 
reaches by which to try the facts alleged by later authors. Any statement that 
is inconsistent with what he has told us in these works concerning himself and 
his course must be rejected as unhistorical ; while the credence given to all other 
statements must be higher, or lower in degree according as they are more or less 
fully confirmed by, or at least in harmony with, what we read in these his own 
authentic writings. 

On the trustworthiness of his own account of himself it is needless to insist. 
The personal details he records may possibly be more or less heightened by the 
religious imagination ; but no candid reader can doubt their substantial truth. 
And the results he claims to have effected we may safely accept in the main, even 
if we allow for something of over-statement as to their extent. Mis-statement of 
facts, or even serious exaggeration, in this matter, could not have been ventured 
on in a writing addressed to men to whom his work, and its successes or failures, 
must have been familiarly known. 

No doubt the suggestions which here and there appear in it of a parallelism 
between his career and that of St. Paul, may indicate a tendency (probably only 
half-conscious) to shape his autobiographical statements with an eye to the history 
of that Apostle, and may raise misgiving as to their historic value. 

Such are: — (i) His assertions of the wide range of his mission {ss. 14, 34, 38, 40, 41 : cp. Rom. xv. 
15-19) — (2) of its entrance into regions where none had forestalled him {s. 51 : cp. Rom. xv. 20 ; 
2 Cor. X. 16) — (3) of the opposition of gainsayers {ss. 26, 46 : cp. 2 Cor. x. lo) — (4) of his perils and 
deliverances (m. 35, 52 : cp. 2 Cor. xi. 23-30) — (5) of supernatural visions and voices sent iot his 
comfort {ss. 17, 21, 23-25 : cp. 2 Cor. xii. 1-9;' Acts xvi. 9, &c.) — (6) of his gentle birth {s. 37 ■? cp. 
Acts xvi. 37, &c.) — (7) of his pecuniary independence (as above noted, p. Ixxxvi), — not to mention 
less marked instances. 

But it would be unreasonable to discredit his narrative because of this 
tendency. Its resemblances to the history of St. Paul are not superinduced by 
a Pauline colouring thrown over it, or by an adjustment of its facts to the lines of 
the Pauline biography, but are due to a real parallelism, the result of St. Patrick's 
lifelong endeavour to form himself on the Pauline example, alike in his spiritual 
being and in his evangelistic course. 

' Note that most of these references point to 2 Corinthians, which Epistle seems to have been specially 
present to St. Patrick's mind in writing the Con/essio. 
2 Cp. E;ptsi., s. 10. 


Postscript to Chapters II.— VII. 
Summary of Results of Survey of Documents examined in Chapters IV.~VII. 

Before leaving the documents which have been severally examined in this 
and the five preceding Chapters, it is worth while to consider what is to be 
learnt from a collective survey of them, as a body of writings gathered and put 
together presumably with a definite purpose in the mind of the compiler. 

To the questions why, in editing them, Ferdomnach has set forth a text 
which is far from complete, of the last and incomparably most valuable of them, 
the Confessio of Patrick himself, and why he has not subjoined to it the Epistola, 
we find no satisfactory answer. We can but regret the facts, — that he has given 
us the former in an imperfect transcript, the latter not at all. 

But as regards the collection of records which he has prefixed to the Confessio ■, 
to serve as an introductory memoir of its author and his acts, we have reason to 
commend his judgment in selecting and arranging them. His guiding aim 
throughout is evidently so to set forth the work done by the Saint as to exalt the 
pre-eminence of his Church of Armagh. This aim, not avowed in words, reveals 
itself with increasing distinctness as we pass from the Life which stands first 
in our ms., to the Memoirs which come next, and thence to the minor and later 
records subjoined. In carrying it out, he has incidentally done us the service of 
bringing together independent documents, of which the origin and approximate 
date are ascertainable. And these two principal documents in their juxtaposition 
are of service to the historical student in two respects : — ( i ) because they are so 
far complementary one to another as to constitute, when put together, something 
approaching to a full history of Patrick's mission ; and further (2) because they 
cover so much of common ground as to enable us to infer the existence of common 
sources considerably older than either of them. 

Muirchu's First Book, indeed, of which the narrative does not extend beyond 
the opening of the mission in Down and its triumph at Tara, offers but little towards 
Ferdomnach' s purpose: in the narrative proper, nothing; in the appended cluster 
of miraculous incidents, only the legend of the founding of the Church of Armagh. 
That legend it relates with such detail as to mark the importance of the foundation, 
and to suggest that the special rank of that Church was present to the thoughts 
of the narrator. But it neither asserts that Armagh was, or was to be, supreme, nor 
even that it was preferred by Patrick to the rest, among the Churches of Ireland. 
In his Second Book, however, Armagh reappears ; here expressly noted as the 
favourite Church of the Saint, and with some prerogative (not clearly defined) 
attached to it. But Down also reappears, as designated by divine command, in 
preference to Armagh, to be the place hallowed by his deathbed and his grave. 
Thus Muirchu's Life, as a whole, confines itself, in its record of Patrick's 



gesta, to eastern Ulster and Meath, without following him southwards, — or even 
westwards ; so that, though it records the vision in which voices summoned him 
to Tirawley, it leaves us to learn elsewhere how he responded to their call. And 
while it yields matter available for the purpose of a collector of evidence in 
support of the prerogative of Armagh, it betrays the presence of no such purpose 
in the mind of the writer. 

With Tirechan's Memoirs it is far otherwise. The object of his work, as avowed 
in the opening of his Second Book (p. 21 b), coincides with Ferdomnach's object, 
as compiler — namely, to assert the rights of the Paruchia Patricii ; and thus it 
Sends itself as material ready to Ferdomnach's hand. This object it seeks to 
attain by the simple method of recording the Churches founded by Patrick in his 
circuits. In Book i. it follows him through Meath, covering but overpassing the 
ground there occupied by Muirchu. In Book 11. it proceeds with him through 
Connaught, and thence into Ulster, with a brief notice subjoined of a journey and 
foundations in Leinster, reaching to Munster — all of this lying outside of Muirchu's 
range, and serving to fill the gap between Books i. and 11. of his narrative. But 
in the First and Second Books alike, the direct mention of Armagh is rare 
and incidental; only once, and that early in Book i., is it definitely described as 
the See of Patrick. Throughout both Books the method adhered to is, to assume 
its Primacy as a fact known and admitted by all : every Church which owes its 
origin to Patrick, owes allegiance to his Paruchia; and of that Paruchia the centre 
is Armagh. This almost tacit assumption is evidence, more cogent than direct 
assertion, however multiplied or emphatic, could be, of the fact that, in the writer's 
time, and within his range, the association of Patrick with Armagh as his special 
See was an article of general belief and well-established recognition. 

So far, then, we arrive at this notable twofold result : — Muirchu, an historian 
dealing with events believed to have taken place in scenes which lay far distant 
from his own district (South-East Leinster) and its traditions, while he records 
the foundation of the Church of Armagh, and recognizes its importance and the 
favour of Patrick towards it, yet neither asserts nor admits its claims to supre- 
macy. Tirechan, dealing with the traditions of Meath (where he had his training), 
and of Connaught (to which apparently he belonged by birth and residence), is 
moved to commit them to writing by his zeal to vindicate that supremacy ; but 
holds it superfluous to relate the facts of the Saint's special relations with Armagh, 
regarding them as matter of which no one of those for whom he wrote could be 
ignorant, and on which all were agreed. 

In Muirchu and Tirechan accordingly we have two independent witnesses, 
writing about the same time, with no discoverable community of aim, and certainly 
in different surroundings, who agree in reporting the tradition that between 
Patrick and the Church of Armagh there existed a special relation, in virtue of 
which it was his peculiar See. To Muirchu indeed, writing in Leinster, this fact 
does not bear the same significance, as implying the supremacy of Armagh, 
which it has In the eyes of Tirechan, writing in Connaught to the men of Meath. 


And this difference of view may fairly suggest the inference that (in the time of 
these two writers) the supremacy if acknowledged was not enforced in Leinster ; 
whereas in Meath and the West and North it was in actual (though, as Tirechan 
deplores, not undisputed) exercise. In fact, Tirechan admits that the claim 
of the Paruchia Patricii to include " the whole island " was but potential (p. 21 <5) ; 
he endeavours merely to vindicate its rights within what he regards as its actual 
extent, — presumably that of the Saint's main circuits and the foundations which 
belonged to them as recorded in his Memoirs. 

(A) Thus, then, we conclude that the tradition, which may be briefly styled that 
of St. Patrick at Armagh, was well established, in North and South alike, before our 
two authors received it in the seventh century — no doubt from Aedh and Ultan 
severally. To the mind of Muirchu the disciple of Aedh of the remoter Church 
of Sletty, it would naturally carry less weight than would be attached to it by 
Tirechan the disciple of Ultan of Ardbraccan ; yet each alike accepted it, we may 
be well assured, as an inheritance from the men of an earlier generation. And if 
its southern differs somewhat from its northern form, so much the more confidently 
may we conclude that each has been independently transmitted, and that their 
common source is not a recent one. 

(B) The tradition of St. Patrick at Tara, in like manner, is attested by both our 
authors — its scene being, in fact, the only common ground of the actual narratives 
(as distinguished from digressive or appended matter) of each. It has been 
already shown (p. li, supr.) how a comparison of the two accounts of the Saint's 
encounter with Laeghaire and his counsellors proves it to be no recent invention 
of either writer, but a current story, oral or written, which each had separately 
inherited, and which traced back to an origin earlier by many generations than 
their own time. 

(C) The same holds good with regard to the tradition of St. Patrick at Slemish. 
Muirchu, as we have seen, relates it in its place in his First Book, and recurs to it 
at the end of his Second : and Tirechan, though it lies outside the limits of both 
his Books, refers to it briefly in the introductory paragraphs of the First, and in 
the Second introduces it retrospectively, with additional incidents, near the close 
of the Ulster circuit. Here, therefore, we again recognize the independence of the 
two reports, and infer the remoteness of the common origin. It has been pointed 
out above (p. Iviii, note *) that the story, as Tirechan has embodied it in his 
Second Book, appears to reproduce the primitive form of the tradition more 
closely than Muirchu, especially in designating the Saint by his earlier British 
name, Succetus ("Sochet"), which Muirchu, though he knew it (see p. 443 a, 
tn/r.), nowhere employs. 

(D) For the tradition of St. Patrick in Tirawky, it is needless to adduce evidence 
or argument : it is no mere tradition ; it comes to us in the written record left by 
the Saint himself, in his thanksgiving for the divine help which enabled him 
to respond to the call that reached him from the Wood of Fochlath (p. 46 (5 ; s. 23) ; 
it is the one fact of his life and mission which is thus localized for us by his own 

M 2 


authority. The insistence with which Tirechan dwells on it and recurs to it, is 
not merely the natural outcome of the feelings of one who was himself a man of 
Tirawley ; it is due, we may be sure, to his appreciation of the fact as a vital one 
towards the inception of the Saint's evangelicenterprise, and in the deterpiination 
of its course. And we may presume that Muirchu, who knew and reported the 
Saint's account of his call, knew also, and tacitly assumes that his readers know, 
how and where and with what results it was fulfilled. 

The Meath episode, though unrecorded by Patrick himself, is confirmed by his assertion that 
his mission had reached the western seaboard. For, landing as he presumably did on the eastern 
coast, he must have made his way to Connaught by crossing the great midland plains : — and we may 
confidently assume that, having entered that region, he would not pass through it merely as a traveller 
Journeying westward, but would take occasion to open his Gospel message there, — to the King and 
Chiefs as well as to the people, if opportunity could be found or forced. 

The inferences that follow from a comparison of these two main documents 
might be pursued further. They yield evidence in other forms — as in showing 
traces of underlying metrical tales of the Acts of Patrick in Meath, Connaught, 
and Ulster,' which our authors worked into their narratives, and even of written 
bases for their numerical details^ ; and again, of the existence when they wrote of 
holy places' which bore his name, to some of which pilgrims were attracted by 
reverence for his memory. But enough has been said above to establish the posi- 
tion that, before the narratives of Muirchu and Tirechan were written — before 
Aedh and Ultan collected the materials for those narratives — there existed, and was 
familiarly known within those regions, a tradition concerning the Patrick who wrote 
the Con/essio, which tradition included {inter alia) these four points: — (i) that 
his years of bondage were passed in Dal Araidhe; (2) that when he returned 
to Ireland on his mission, he confronted the King and his councillors at Tara ; 

(3) that he fulfilled the divine summons in carrying the Gospel to Tirawley ; and 

(4) that he finally founded and chose for his peculiar See the Church of Armagh. 
It may be added (5) that the tradition of St. Patrick in Down, though it lacks 
Tirechan' s support, yet coming as it does from Muirchu as part of a narrative 
which Tirechan confirms in its other parts, and free as it Is from improbabilities 
or extravagance of incident, may safely be accepted (on grounds above stated) as 
an early and credible narrative, derived from the traditions of the north-eastern 
Churches, especially of the great Church of Down. 

It is hardly necessary to add that both writers represent Patrick's work as that 
of an evangelist, dealing with heathen tribes ; and that in this they are borne out 
by his own authority, in the passages where he gives thanks for the conversion by 
his means of " the people who had newly attained belief" [s. 38), who previously 
" never had the knowledge of God, but had worshipped idols and unclean things" 
{s. 41). 

» See pp. 45, 10 b (Muirchu I.) ; 23 b (Tirechan 11.). 2 See above, pp. xlvi, note '; xlvii, note ^ : 

also p. 444 a, 11. 31, 82, below. 

' See pp. 5 «, 13 i5 (Muirchu I.) ; 16 5 (Muirchu ii.) ; 24 b, 29 a, 29 b, 30 b (Tirechan II.). 


Supplemental Note to Summary. 
Professor Zimmer's Theofy ("Kelttsche Kirche"). 

It does not come within the scope of this Introduction to deal with modern theories concerning 
the person or the work of St. Patrick. Yet it may not be out of place, at this point of our study of 
the MS., to compare the results above gathered from the earliest records of his Acts, with the 
conjectural reconstruction of his history and personality which has recently attracted much notice as 
being put forward with his well-known ingenuity and learning by Professor Zimmer.' 

Leaving aside details, his theory may be stated (mainly in his own words) as follows : — 

"It is impossible that in the North of Ireland there existed an early seventh-century tradition of 
a founder of the Irish Church called Patrick" (p. 12). "The historical Patrick," author of the 
Con/essio and Epistola, was a Briton named Sucat, to be identified (pp. 35, 38) with the Palladius^ 
whom (as we learn from Prosper) Pope Celestine sent to Ireland in 431, — probably not as a missionary 
to a heathen people, but as a controversialist to refute Pelagianism among Irish Christians. He 
"appears to have settled somewhere in County Wicklow, whence he raised his claim to be Bishop of 
Ireland" (p. 48). " How far his missionary efforts extended to Connaught and the North-West can 
hardly be ascertained from the Confessio" (p. 46). He "failed to influence the Irish Church," and 
" was soon forgotten everywhere save in the district of his special activity " (South-Eastern Ireland) 
where he died in 459 (pp. 48, 49). In that district "he was resuscitated in the seventh century," 
and "created Apostle to the Gentiles in Ireland" {ib,); this resuscitation being effected by " the 
Roman party" there (p. 78), — that (namely) which desired to conform the Irish Church to Roman 
usages, especially in the Easter controversy. Its object was "to work upon the North Irish Church 
and the Bishop of Armagh " by means of " the Patrick legend," so as "to win over North Ireland" 
to that party (pp. 77, 79). This "legend sprang up" about 625, and appears first in the letter of 
Cummian to Seghene of Hi in 634.' The Life written by Muirchu (of Wicklow) under the direction 
of Aedh (of Sletty) embodying the legend was one of the means by which this resuscitation was 
effected and the "legendary Patrick" exalted into the Apostleship, with Armagh as his See and 
supremacy entailed on his successors in it. 

In confirmation of this theory, the Confessio is called in. The "illiterate and corrupt language" of 
the book, the " want of literary culture " betrayed by the writer, are suitable to the " historic Patrick " 
— but not to the "legendary Patrick" who "is supposed to have founded in the fifth century the Irish 
Church, which from the sixth to the ninth century was in learning and culture foremost in Western 
Christendom" (p. 31). 

Thus we are asked to accept (i) a real Patrick, an unsuccessful personage of no great significance, 
of the fifth century ; (2) a legendary Patrick, a magnified semblance of the former, devised in the 
South and imposed on the credulity of the North in the seventh; and finally, again (3) a real Patrick 
reduced to his proper place and dimensions by the reconstructive instinct of Zimmer in the twentieth. 

Against this theory are to be set the results which our study of the documents in the Book of 
Armagh has established. One of these documents, Patrick's Confessio, proves the fact of his mission 
in the farthest West ; another, Tirechan's Memoirs, proves that the traditions of his acts in Meath, and 
in Ulster, were currently known and accepted in regions remote from Leinster, long before the time 
when Zimmer supposes them to have been invented in Leinster by an ecclesiastical faction to serve 
its own ends. 

For (i) the work of Patrick in Tirawley, it suffices to repeat that we have Patrick's own attestation, 

1 Article "Keltische Kirche in Brit. u. Trl.," in Realen-Cyklopadie f. protest. Iheol. u. Kirche, 
Band 10, pp. 204 et sqq. ; The Celtic Church in Britain and Ireland (tr. by A. Meyer). 

^ "Sucatus - ei'ir6\fixos, warlike"; hence = Palladius (p. 38 ; — surely a far-fetched equation). 
' AJ>, Ussher ( Works, vol. rv., pp. 432 et sqq, ; Migne, Patrol. Lat., t. Ixxxvii., p. 975. 


in the passage' where he implies that he has carried the Gospel to the people of the " Silua Focluti," on 
the "Western Sea." In the face of such evidence, Zimmer's attempt— a hesitating one— to discredit 
the fact, can only be due to his perception that it will not fit into his theory of a mission of narrow 
range, unsuccessfully essayed by a man of petty character and slight importance. 

Concerning (2) his life in Dal Araidhe and (3) his acts in Meath, we have seen that Tirechan's 
narrative, where it runs closely parallel with Muirchu's, points back to a common origin in a tradition 
much older than their time. 

But it is against the alleged facts of (4) Patrick's relations with Armagh that Zimmer's attack is 
mainly directed, — facts which on his theory have been invented with politic intent by the school 
of which Muirchu was the disciple and the penman — that of Aedh and his contemporary Cummian. 
And it is here that the failure of that theory is most signal ; it is self-condemned. Muirchu's Life 
speaks for itself: it is no fiction with a purpose. Nothing could be less like the vehicle of pious 
fraud, such as Zimmer's theory postulates. Nor could anything be less adequately devised to effect 
its supposed end. As we have seen, its First Book tells nothing of Armagh save its foundation ; 
and its Second (which by the way Zimmer does not accept as Muirchu's) merely notes Patrick's 
preference of that Church, but gives no hint of its Primacy. 

If indeed Muirchu were author, not of the Life, but of the contemporary Memoirs which follow it 
in our MS., — or if Tirechan, the writer of those Memoirs, could be supposed accessary to the designs 
of Muirchu and of Aedh, — then Zimmer might be admitted to have made out a fairly plausible case. 
For the Memoirs are professedly a plea for the rights of the "Heirs of Patrick" and of his See of 
Armagh ; so that Tirechan's work is somewhat such as Muirchu might have composed had his purpose 
in writing been what Zimmer imagines. — But in point of fact, Muirchu's actual work shows (as we 
have seen) no sign of such purpose ; while Tirechan, who avows that purpose as his motive in writing, 
stands aloof and clear from all possible suspicion of complicity in the design attributed to Muirchu. 
And thus the concurrence of these two independent documents, — the Life, which records the foun- 
dation of Armagh by the Saint, but is silent about its supremacy, and the Memoirs, which are a 
vindication of the supremacy, but take the foundation for granted as an accepted fact, — is conclusive 
evidence for the early and general prevalence of the tradition of St. Patrick at Armagh, and against the 
idea that it was a politic invention of the South-Eastern Church in the seventh century. 

To Zimmer it seems inexplicable that this tradition, if it existed in the North early in the seventh 
century, should "first reach us from the South": this, he says, is a " topsy-turvydom " ^ not to be 
accounted for (p. 12). The following considerations, which he has failed to attend to, supply the 
explanation : — (i) We have proof that Sletty and other Churches of the South-East claimed Patrick as 
founder, a claim which accounts for the zeal of Aedh and Muirchu in putting together and recording 
the tradition of his Life. — (2) Though no written record of that tradition has come to us from Armagh, 
the tradition may none the less have been orally current there, so universally accepted that no one 
cared (perhaps no one was competent') to throw it into the form of a Latin biography like Muirchu's. 
— (3) Muirchu's was not, as Zimmer implies, the first, still less the only, such written record : we have 
also that of his contemporary Tirechan, who wrote in Meath and Mayo independently of him, perhaps 
earlier, certainly not later, and evidently unknown to him ; of which work the very existence is fatal 
(as above shown) to Zimmer's perversion of the facts. The " topsy-turvydom " which he discerns 
belongs to that perversion, not to the facts which, by means of it, he seeks to discredit. 

But when we turn to the question of Patrick's relations with Southern Ireland, we find that Zimmer 
has better ground for one part of his conclusions. As to these relations, Muirchu gives no informa- 
tion : Tirechan has little to give, and that little is confined to a limited region of Leinster ; of Munster, 
nothing beyond the bare fact that Patrick reached Cashel. Of the Armagh records, those which 
relate to Leinster are likewise limited to the South-East. Muirchu's silence, however, does not prove 
that he knew nothing. It is not probable that he was ignorant of Patrick's acts in Leinster of 
which Tirechan had been able to acquire knowledge. And the record (p. 36 a) of Patrick as founder 
of Sletty, which we have traced (p. Ixxii) to Aedh, together with that of the consequent subjection of 

1 See p. 46* (= White, s. 23 ; cp. ss. 34, 51). 

2 " Ist dies alles nicht verkehrte Welt f (p, 208). 

' Ferdomnach, the scriba opimus of Armagh, so late as the early ninth century, wrote Latin with 
difficulty ;— see p. 36 b for his apology. 


Sletty by Aedh to the supremacy of Armagh, cannot have been unknown to Aedh's disciple. Indeed 
the reference to Fiacc and Sletty in Muirchu's narrative (p. 8 5) may be fairly adduced as implying the 
writer's knowledge of the tie which connected that Church with Patrick. — Yet on the whole the 
result of a study of these documents is, that Patrick's activities in the South-East, and still more in the 
South, can only have been subsequent and secondary to his main work, in midland, western, and 
northern Ireland. In the North and in Meath, the work, though he had helpers and associates in it, 
is, from its inception to its completion, represented as wholly his. In the South he intervenes as one 
who has come from the North to carry out the beginning made by Iserninus and to strengthen his hands. 
It is to be conceded, then, to Zimmer that the supremacy which is asserted for Patrick and Armagh is by 
our documents attested in its fulness only as to the North, West, and Midland regions ; in a very limited 
measure as to Lemster ; as to Munster, hardly at all. The Chjirch may, for aught that these autho- 
rities tell us to the contrary, have existed in Leinster and prevailed in Munster independently of his 
mission and before his time. His claim to be the Evangelist of Ireland would thus be limited to so 
much of Ireland as was Pagan in the first half of the fifth century. But this would be two-thirds, or 
probably three-fourths, of the island, including all the midland, western, and northern parts. And 
as we have seen above (p. Ixxxvi), there is to be noted in the Confessio some suggestion of the presence 
in Ireland of a Christian element, not due to or influenced by him, indisposed to recognize his 

Nevertheless, it is to be emphasized that the documents, while they thus attest a limited work done 
by Patrick in the South-East, lend not the faintest confirmation to that part of the above theory which 
postulates a "historic Patrick" commissioned to correct heresy among the Christians of Southern 
Ireland, with his abode somewhere in Wicklow, and his ineffectual claim to be acknowledged Bishop 
of Ireland. — Patrick's sole point of contact with Wicklow, according to Muirchu, was at the port where 
he touched on his return to Ireland, but (as Muirchu apparently implies) forbore to land (p. 4 b). 
The tradition of Sletty (p. 36 a), and the tradition to like effect which Tirechan learned and recorded 
(p. 30 a), make Patrick enter Leinster by land, from the North, after his work had been carried far 
towards completion in Meath, Connaught, and Ulster. Professor Zimmer supposes him to reach 
Leinster by sea, from the East, as the first beginning of his work in Ireland, leaving it doubtful 
whether he ever penetrated to the West; and utterly discredits his work in the "Northern Half" of 
Ireland in general, and its centralization at Armagh in particular. 

For the Patrick who, as he himself affirms, converted the heathen by thousands from idolatry and 
carried the Gospel to the farthest western seaboard,^ we are required to accept a Patrick of Zimmer's 
devising, limited to a narrow range in East Leinster, vainly claiming acceptance as Bishop among 
the imperfectly instructed Christians of that region. And the Patrick whose illiteracy, though he 
ingenuously owns and apologizes for it,^ Zimmer has thought fit to dwell on with ungenerous derision, 
is (we are assured) the Palladius who was commissioned from Rome to correct the heresies of 
Southern-Irish Christendom (pp. 45-47) ! 

Without assenting to the mean estimate of Patrick's intellect and knowledge which is an element 
in the above theory, we must agree that he was ill-equipped for a polemical mission to the followers 
of Pelagius. And we note the fact as exposing the absurdity of the theory which represents the Pope 
as sending an ignorant enthusiast to do the work of a skilled theologian. It is to be added (though 
the observation is hardly needed) that no trace of anti-Pelagian purpose is to be detected anywhere in 
the Confessio, The Saint sets forth his Creed in j. 4 : it is in form a simple affirmation of a series of 
articles of faith, not a negation of error or heresies : the creed, in a word, not of a controversialist 
but of an evangelist. And the contrast between the view of the whole life and work of Patrick which 
we gather from a survey of the document which we have from his own hand, and the view which 
Professor Zimmer would substitute for it, cannot be more justly expressed than in the form of this 
antithesis. Zimmer invents a Patrick sent to controvert heterodoxy in a small and ill-instructed 
Christian community, in a mission which ended in failure : Patrick declares himself as charged with 

' See ss. 14, 23, 34, 38, 41, so, 51. 

2 See Con/,, ss. 1, 9, 10, ef passim. 

Zimmer, in needlessly adducing (pp. 28-31) SchoU's opinion to support his own contemptuous judg- 
ment on Patrick's language and style, actually cites as from him {De ecclesiast. Britonum Scotorumque 
Historiae Fontibus, p. 71) the epithets " rusticissimus," " zndocius," which Patrick humbly applies to 
himself; though Scholl, with more candour, marks them as quotations. 


the evangelization of heathen Ireland at large, and thanks God for the success that, notwithstanding 
all hindrances, has crowned his labours. 

The above, though the most important, is not the only instance in which Professor Zimmer has 
been led into ill-founded and inconsistent conclusions, by studying the documents hastily and in a 
prejudiced spirit. 

Prejudice is shown, for example, in the repeated application (pp. 39, 44) to Patrick of the epithets 
■"narrow-minded," "" \^^geistigbeschrdnUt" "exaliiert," ^^religm uberspannt"'\. — Nothing in 
his life or writings warrants these ; they but express the usual misjudgment of the critic who pro- 
nounces on a man and a cause with which he is not in sympathy. So again, the Saint's assertion of 
his '■'■ ingenuitas" {s. 37; cp. Epist., s. 10) — evidently made to refute detractors who alleged against 
him his early condition as slave — is set down (p. 39) as an exaggeration due to "arrogance." A 
grosser instance is where (p. 43) the sin of early youth which he owns to (s. 27) is not only assumed, 
without proof, to have been an act of unchastity, but is strained into the statement that he [a boy of 
fifteen IJ, " although a Christian, gave himself up to worldly pleasures" [J'fuhre em lockeres Weltchristen- 
lum" {rather, " led a dissolute life of worldly Christianity")]. 

HasM is shown by him in discrediting Muirchu's Zt/e, on the ground of "lack of colour and 
substance " (p. 12). In a careful reading he could not have failed to note the precision of detail and 
tokens of local knowledge by which a large portion of Muirchu i. is marked, and which reappear in 
Muirchu 11. (see above, pp. xxiii-xxxiii, xli). 

But the most serious of his hasty lapses is contained in the proposition which he lays down as the 
basis of his main thesis (p. 12). "The first reports in this matter [Patrick's Armagh Primacy] reach 
us from the South" [from Muirchu and Aedh, in the seventh century]. In this he has not only over- 
looked the fact that "reports" to the like effect have reached us from the Midlands and West likewise, 
from Ultan and Tirechan, — absolutely independent of those that come from Aedh and Muirchu, quite 
as early, and much fuller and more explicit, — but farther, he has fallen into self-contradiction. For the 
acknowledgment of Armagh as the See of Patrick is not found in Muirchu's First Book, which merely 
relates how Patrick founded its Church, — but only in his Second. Now Zimmer, in the page (13) just 
following the above, has denied Muirchu's authorship of what we accept as Muirchu 11., and treats it 
as an "Appendix," written "before 730" by an author unknown.' If then he is right in deciding that 
it is not Muirchu's, and is of the eighth century, he has removed the only ground for attributing to 
Muirchu, or to Aedh, the invention, or even the promulgation, in the seventh century, of the " legend " 
of St. Patrick's Primacy at Armagh ; and thus has himself overthrown the whole of the theory which 
he had built upon that ground. 

' There is no proof that Aedh had any hand in Muirchu II. Zimmer may be right in placing it in the 
early eighth century. But if so, it is too late for Aedh {od. 699), though not for Muirchu, who may have 
survived him many years. 



Our Manuscript was written, beyond question, at Armagh ; in a monastery 
within the rath which enclosed the apex of the hill Drum Sailech {"Dorsum 
salids"),^ as it was called when clothed with osiers ; or Rath-Dairi, when St. 
Patrick first visited it ; or, as in the prehistoric period, Ardd Macha, a name 
which is of older date than two thousand years, and has, in the slightly modified 
form of Armagh, outlived its other titles. The exact spot of the scribe's abode 
was either within the precincts of the existing Cathedral, or (more likely) in the 
very ancient Abbey of St. Peter and St. Paul, which, in the twelfth century, was 
the abode of St. Maolmoge (Malachi) O'Morgair,' and occupied a space opposite 
the present Library.* 

In subsequent times the belief became current that the Book was of 
St. Patrick's time, and (in part at least) his actual autograph. Now, the com- 
monly received date of St. Patrick's death is 492,' more than three centuries 
before the date inferred by Bishop Graves for our ms. The origin of this 
erroneous belief is easily traced. The last of the Patrician documents (which 
constitute the First Division of the ms.) is St. Patrick's Confessio. At the end of it 
(f. 24 if) is the very interesting colophon, " Hucusque uolumen quod Patricius manu 
conscripsit sua. Septima decima Martii die translatus est Patricius ad caelos. ' ' But 
this cannot possibly be regarded as an attempt on the part of the copyist to ante- 
date his work by referring it back to the age of St. Patrick ; still less, to convey 
the idea that his copy was the original. In fact, the subsequent entry (f. 53 v' a) 
which joins his name with that of Torbach, his patron,^ proves that he had no such 
purpose; not to mention that the Confessio is written, without any attempt at 
disguise, in the same hand as the Gospel to which that entry is appended, and the 
rest of the book. Moreover, two obscure places occur in the Confessio (ff. 22 v" a, 
23 r" a), opposite to which he has noted on the margin, " incertus liber hie," 
evidently referring to certain difficulties in his exemplar, probably due to injuries 

' This Chapter is compiled from Dr. Reeves's two Memoirs (see note ^ p. xiii, sujir.), and his MS. 
annotations on the earlier of them. The Editor has added a few paragraphs and notes. 

" See below, p. 12 (f. 6 V b). ' Died 1 148 {Four MM., s. a.). 

* Reeves, Ancient Churches of Armagh, p. 28. 

^ Ann. lilt., t. I., p. 30. But a more trustworthy account {ib., p. i8j assigns it to 461. See above, 
p. xlvii ; also note ^ to p. xc. — [Ed.] ' See p. xv, su^r., and p. cxiv, infr. 



sustained by it (or its archetype) in the lapse of time.^ This '■'liber,''' or 
exemplar, therefore, is the "uolumen'' which, in the colophon, he declares to be 
(or to be copied from) the autograph of the Saint himself. But in after- 
generations, when the real history of the ms. had been forgotten, the notion 
certainly existed, and perhaps was encouraged, that it was written by St. Patrick's 
own hand ; and thus it came to be generally known as the Canoin Phadraig (or 
"Patrick's Testament").^ At first, it was of course regarded in the Church of 
Armagh, for whose use it was prepared, as a beautiful transcript — but a recent 
one — of early documents. Then, in process of time, when the period of discrimi- 
nation was past, and the public mind was ready to receive an exaggerated story 
of its antiquity and authority, it was apparently passed off, and accepted, as 
St. Patrick's autograph, the claim being accredited by the seeming support of 
the misinterpreted colophon above cited. Afterwards, to get rid of the adverse 
testimony of the signatures of the actual scribe, and thus to enhance veneration 
at the cost of historical verity, some interested person or persons ventured to 
obliterate the repeated appeal of his subscription, ''Pro Ferdomnacho ores" by 
erasion' so nearly effectual, that in but two of them (ff. 215 r" a, 221 y b) can his 
name be on close inspection recognized. 

Under a.d. 937, the Four Masters record that "a case {cumhdhach) was provided 
for the Canoin Patraicc by Donnchadh son of Flann, King of Ireland." This seems 
to be the earliest mention of our ms. by the annalists ; and we infer that by this 
name it was at that date called by them and known to the Church. 

Hence, if the above explanation of the title Canoin Phadraig be right, the belief that the ms. was 
St. Patrick's autograph must have become accepted within a century after the death (in 845, — see p. xiv, 
supr.') of the real scribe. — But the fact that it bore this name at such an early date makes it more 
probable that it was called "Patrick's," because his Confessio and the documents relating to him and 
his work occupy the first place in it. If this be so, it follows, farther, that the existing order of its 
contents, in which these documents have precedence before the rest, is the original order, or (at least) 
is not later than the earlier part of the tenth century. — [Ed.J 

The Book, when given over by the last Keeper (see below, pp. cviii-cx), was in a remarkable 
satchel of leather, stamped with Celtic pattern, evidently of great antiquity. But this cannot have 
been the case given by Donnchadh (which was probably of silver or other metal, like the case of the 
Cathach or that of the Book of Dimma). Its dimensions (12J x iz x 2J inches) are not adapted to 
those of our ms., for which it evidently was not made ; and it is not a cumhdhack, but a polaire (satchel). 
[This polaire is still with the MS. Its pattern has been reproduced in the cover of the bound copies of 
the present edition. — Ed.J 

At the beginning of the eleventh century, it was in such high esteem at 
Armagh, that it was employed to receive the record of the ratification by King 
Brian, surnamed Boroimhe (the first Ard Rigk, or Sovereign King of all Ireland 

' In these and also eight other places (see ff. 22 r'-2\ v') he has set in the margin the Z which signifies 
docbt of the text. [See above, Chapter VII, pp. Ixxix, Ixxx.] 

''Canon' is sometimes used by Irish writers in the sense oi ' Tesiameni' {OldorNew). So in Vita 
S. Kannachi, c. iv, p. 4, 'Cum S, Kannechus . . . utramque Canonem legisset (Marquis of Ormonde's 
edition, 1853). ^ Both knife and sponge have evidently been used. 

Plate II. 

ti^i».]tiiiiniHi.i;!m iriii.\-l''.tni"';j-;M;r 
ilil.'ttir ]^l|^>'t'^tt"' .r.ibnnirfiim ■ •;.. 

. >?aiif>' JiitnpV iiirlm)r jitmtr p.iin«tr 
'; "itiliimwif .j»Mm;nitn'i'-JiI(i'i.r I'r 

Ijrnitiiwnrtnfllir Cit^^iwiti^iTH Aiir 
.jiitOWTv]; ?i;tuBii)7imiif Viir"' iV 





ntf Itincwinr pJiMif^Vtlti 
(v- Ijifj-n .VCftm^ <»y <>t|r.Jtii4 

I'utflm.vrii'MAn ^imil) 

vItkV^ 4'imitv:^ • 

utm iiiiiir-lrniijisftff-itiVfl; It' 



A, FoL. 24 vo. 

B, FoL. 53 V". 


who was not of the royal stock of the North), of the ancient privileges of the 
Church of Armagh. He became King at the age of seventy-six, in 1002 ; and in 
1004 he made a royal progress through Ireland, receiving the submission of the 
people as he went along. Having arrived at Armagh, he remained in that city 
for a week, and presented a golden ring of twenty ounces as an offering on 
St. Patrick's altar.^ Presumably it was on this occasion that he caused the entry^ 
to be made which appears in our ms. on the verso of f. 16, in a hand undoubtedly 
ancient, but evidently much later as well as less elegant than that In which the 
substance of the volume is written. The following is a translation of it : — " Saint 
Patrick, when going to heaven, decreed that the entire fruit of his labour, as well 
of baptism and of causes as of alms, should be rendered to the apostolic city 
which in the Scotic tongue is called Arddmacha. Thus I have found in the 
records of the Scots. [This] I have written, namely, Caluus Perennis, in the 
presence of Brian, Emperor of the Scots ; and what I have written he has 
determined on behalf of all the Kings of Maceria.^'^ 

In this curious record, which confirmed to Armagh the ecclesiastical supremacy 
in Ireland, there is a total absence of the legal formalities which afterwards came 
in with the Anglo-Norman settlement ; but it is quite in keeping with the style of 
the Celtic memoranda which are preserved in a few other ancient mss. of the Irish 
Church.* Caluus Perennis is the Latin equivalent for Maelsuthain,^ the name of 
the writer of the entry. He was the "soul-friend'''' {"anmchara,'''' = confessor) of the 
King, and seems to have accompanied him in his expeditions. His death, in the 
year 1031, is recorded by the Four Masters (t. 11., p. 822). In like manner, Maceria 
represents Cashel (Cawm/),® which city was the capital of the "high Kings" of 
Leth Mogha (the *• southern half") of Ireland, on this occasion represented by 
Brian in his own name and that of his successors (" regibus Maceriae"). 

Archbishop Ussher printed this document in his Religion Anciently Professed by the Irish,'' omitting 
the last clause, possibly through doubt of the meaning oi Maceriae, and of the preceding verb (which 
Maelsuthain has written fini'tuit, intending finiuif). Sir William Betham was more adventurous in his 
translation — "He confirmed for all kings with his seal 0/ wax" (reading "[/&r]?na ceriae" [«ir], as he 
explains). But further on, he decides to read "regibus mac Eriae."^ 

Brian fell at Clontarf in 1014; but the royal sanction thus given by him to the 
claims of Armagh no doubt conferred additional importance on this See, and 

1 For these facts, see Ann. Ult., t. I., pp. 514, 516 ; Four MM., t. II., pp. 746, 752, 756. 

2 It was the custom in the old monasteries to enter charters in the margins or blank pages of their most 
valued manuscripts, as the best mode of securing the preservation of such documents. 

2 The "records" here referred to are no doubt those contained in the Liber Angeli (see above, 
p. Ixxviii), which document had apparently been shown to Maelsuthain, to convince him and his King of 
the prerogative conferred by the Saint on Armagh. — [Ed.] 

* As in The Book of Kells ; The Book of MacDurnan (now at Lambeth) ; The Book of Chad 
(Lichfield) ; also in The Book of Llandaff (Wales), The Book of Dear (Scotland). 

' This is a rare name, but was of repute in Kerry ; and we find it accordingly in Ann. Inisf., at 992 
and 1014; Ann. Ult., 1009. 

^ O' Curry, Lectures on MS. Mat., p. 654. Caiseal is cognate with Castellum, Castle. Maceria = ' a 
stone wall (of enclosure) ' ; in the Campagna it survives as Masseria, = 'a fortified farmhouse.' 

' Works, t. III., p. 318. 8 Researches, p. 394. 



greatly enhanced the value and reverence attributed to the Book which was the 
depository of its record. 

In the next century our ms., now exalted into the position of an heirloom of 
the successors of St. Patrick, comes again into view. In 1134, Niall son of 
Aedh, Comharb of St. Patrick, was compelled by Malachi (above-mentioned, p. ci) 
to retire from Armagh; and his flight is thus described by his contemporary, 
St. Bernard, in his eulogium on Malachi: — "Nigellus^ uidens sibi imminere 
fugam, tulit secum insignia quaedam Sedis illius, textum scilicet Euangeliorum qui 
fuit beati Patricii, baculumque auro tectum et gemmis pretiosissimis adornatum 
quern nominant Baculum lesu^ eo quod ipse Dominus (ut fert opinio) eum suis 
manibus tenuerit atque formauerit. Et haec summae dignitatis et uenerationis in 
gente ilia. Nempe notissima sunt celeberrimaque in populis, atque in ea reue- 
rentia apud omnes, ut qui ilia habere uisus fuerit, ipsum habeat episcopum populus 
stultus et insipiens."' In virtue of his possession of these two objects (thus 
regarded as though they were the title-deeds of the Primacy), coupled with his 
ecclesiastical descent, Niall was enabled, after two years' exclusion, to return to 
Armagh, and resume his station. 

It was customary also, on very solemn occasions, to administer oaths upon 
this Book ; and the person thus sworn was regarded as taking an obligation of an 
awfully binding nature. If he forswore himself, or broke a promise ratified upon 
it, he was said to "violate the Canon of Patrick." For example, the Ulster 
Afinals relate that, in 1179, " O'Ruadhachan [O'Rogan], Lord of Echach, died 
after three nights' sickness, soon after his expulsion and his profanation of the 
Canoin Patraic."^ Thus the secular arm inflicted temporal punishment by exile, 
which divine retribution followed up by death. But if a foreigner injured or took 
forcible possession of the Book, the transgression was venial, and reparation could 
readily be made. A year or two before O'Rogan's offence, in 1 177, when John de 
Courcy, Earl of Ulster, took Downpatrick, the Primate fell into his hands, and 
with him this and other sacred insignia of his See ; but, soon after, de Courcy 
returned the Canoin to Armagh, where it resumed its customary place of deposit.* 
Again, before the close of the century, we find it employed to add solemnity 
to an oath; for in 1196, " Muirchertach, son of Muirchertach O'Lachlainn 
.[O'Loughlin], Lord of Cenel Eoghain [Owen], was killed by Donnchadh, son of 
Bloschadh O'Cathain [O'Kane], at the instigation of the Cenel Eoghain, who had 
sworn allegiance to him before the Three Shrines and the Canoin Patraic."^ 

Of this use of the Book, unmistakable and lasting evidence is even now lamentably conspicuous 
on its face. When it is opened between ff. 12 and 13, two pages facing one another (12 »° and 13 r°) 

1 This is St. Bernard's Latin equivalent (in sound, not in sense) for Niall. He even plays upon the 
name so transformed— " iyi^feZ/MJ- quidam, imo uero nigerrtmus." See his Liber de Viia et Gesiis 
S. Malachiae, Oj>j>., t. ii., col. 674 (Mabillon's ed., 1719). 

'^ For the history of the Baculus lesu {bachall Isa), see Colgan, Trias Thaum., p. 263 a ; and Todd, 
Introd. to Obits of Christ Church, pp. viii-xx. 

3 0^;p., as above, col. 675. * Ann. Ult., t. II., p. 94 ; cp. Four MM,, t. iii., p. 48. 

6 Annals of Inisf alien, a;p. O'Donovan, Four MM., t. ill., p. 31, note ^ 

« Ann. Ult., t. II., p. 222 ; cp. Four MM., t. in., p. 102. 


are disclosed so rubbed and discoloured, no doubt by frequent contact of rough and unwashen hands, 
that large parts of the text they contain are almost (some of them altogether) undecipherable.' Water- 
stains also appear on the verso off. 13, indicating a farther misuse of the volume. These leaves are — 
the last (f. 12) of the first quire, and the first (f. 13) of the second quire, of the ms. At this place, 
accordingly, it would naturally open, and would probably be left open. Betham, the first editor of 
this First Division of the ms. (see p. cxiii, infr.), writes of these pages {Researches, p. xxviii) — " Here two 
pages in the ms., so much defaced as to be illegible," Subsequent students of it have recovered, with 
approximate certainty, most (but not all) of the half-obliterated text, — part, namely, of Tirechan 11. ; 
by the help, mainly, of passages of V. T. which run parallel with it." — [Ed»J 

The special custody of the Book had probably before this time been committed 
to a responsible official (Maor= Keeper, or Steward),^ presumably a member of the 
primatial family or one of its collaterals, as the Maor of the Bachall Isa certainly 
was.* The office of ^^ Keeper of the Canon" was both honourable and lucrative; 
and thus the title Maor eventually became a surname of distinction, like that of 
Stewart in Scotland, where XhQ Mor-Mhaor Leamkna, "High-Steward of Lennox," 
gave name to a family which attained to royalty. The family name Mac Moyre 
first appears in Primate Sweteman's Register, May 26, 1367, where "Thomas 
MacMoer" is set down as owing four shillings," — probably a year's rent of his 
holding under the See of Armagh. For our Keeper, in virtue of his important 
trust, held from the Primates a substantial endowment in land in, and no doubt 
long before, the year 1375, in which year, in the rental of the then Primate 
(Sweteman), appears the entry, " Out of the land of the ' Bearer of the Canon ' 
(Baiulator^ Canonis), five shillings." Of this holding, more is to be said farther 
on. In reference to the duty of the Bearer, it is to be observed that the leather 
polaire of our MS. had straps attached to the upper corners, so that it could be 
slung from the shoulders, and with safety and convenience carried in processions 
or journeys ; or even on military occasions — ^as the Cathach i^praeliator), or Battle- 
book of St. ColumCille certainly was — with the same intent as the Ark of the 
Hebrews was borne against the Philistines. 

Further mention of the Mac Moer family occurs early in the following century. In 1427 it appears 
that the Keeper was reduced to great straits by the usurpations of the O'Nialls in the territory of 
"the Fews" (still so called), in which his lands were situate. In that year Primate Swayne granted an 
indulgence of forty days to all and singular who should contribute out of their substance to the relief 
of "Moyre-na-Kanany" {Maor naC amine), the "Steward of the Canon," of the diocese of Armagh, 
who had been impoverished by depredations made on him at royal instigation.' But not long after, 
in 14s S, Primate Mey's Register^ shows the Keeper (whether the same person or a successor), not as 

* See farther, p. cxvii, infr. * See pp. 24, 25, infr., and also Appendix B. 

' So the Bell of St. Patrick (the "Bell of the Will ") was consigned to the care of a member of the family 
of O'Mulchallan (see Trans. R.I.A., vol. xxvii. (1877), pp. i et sqq. ; and the Cathach of St. Columbkille 
to that of a Mac Robhartaigh [M'Grorty]. — See Reeves's Adamnan, p. 320. 

^ See reff. in note *, last page. The death of " Flann O'Sinaich, Keeper of the Bachal Isa," is 
recorded s.a. 1135 {Four MM., t. 11., p. 1048). The family of O'Sinaich descended from Sinach, 
progenitor of the primatial family (being father of Dubhdalethi (778-793), firom and after whom the Comharb- 
ship passed from father to son). ' Regist. Sweteman, f. 45 b. 

^ lb., f. 31 a. — Baiulus and its cognates are words of uncertain etymology. In low Latin the form 
balliuus becomes its equivalent — hence bailiff. — See p. 339 b, infr. (Acts iii. 2), where bailabatur is 
written for baiulabatur. 

' Regist. Swayne, iii., f. 80 {sched.) — ^heading of entry, Balliuus Canonis S. Patricii. 

* Reg. Mey, iv., f. 45 v°. 


victim, but as worker of oppression. It records how, when the Baiulator Canonis and the Gustos Cam- 
panae had conjointly laid claim to the firstlings of sheep throughout the diocese, their presumption 
was checked by a strict prohibition against paying this exaction to any unauthorized person, especially 
to these two officials. 

In 1484 an entry appears in the Register of the then Primate (Octavian de Palatio)' which raises 
a question. Maurice O'Mulmoid (O'Molloy), as one of the witnesses to the oath of obedience to the 
Primate taken by MeanmaMacCarmacain, Bishop of Raphoe, subscribes himself as Baiulator Canonis. 
It may be that the Canon had been temporarily taken from the MacMoyres and given to an O'Molloy ; 
or it may be merely that O'Molloy was the hereditary, as MacMoyre was the official, name of the 
Keepers. Whether we are to suppose a transfer to a new family of Keepers, or merely a revival of 
the ancient name of the Keeper's family, cannot now be decided.^ 

In the earliest years of the seventeenth century, the lands with which the office of Keeper was 
endowed were still held by the MacMoyres. In the "Armagh Inquisition" of 1609,' the jurors find 
that "the sept of Clann MacMoyre and their auncestors, tyme out of mynde, were, and yet are, pos- 
sessed of the eight townes of land [names set forth] in the barony of the Fuighes [now Fews^ 

and held the same of the lord Archbusshop of Ardmagh." Soon after (1614), the jurors find that there 
is a house in Armagh, held under the Abbot of SS. Peter's and Paul's, called " the Sergeant of Bally- 
moyrie's tenement"^ {Sergeant being another equivalent for Maor, occasionally used in records of the 
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries*). The Primate's Rental of 1615 gives the names often divisions 
of the "territories de Ballemoire," including the eight "townes" above recited, and of the eleven 
tenants (eight of them named "M'Imoire") who held them. But from the rental of 1620= all these 
tenants have disappeared; and, before 1622, the tenancy has finally passed from the MacMoyres, and 
" George Fayrefax, Esq.," takes their place as sole tenant of these (with other) lands.' The house in 
the city of Armagh passed, with the other possessions of the above Abbey, to the first Lord Caulfeild.^ 
But the Keeper's family were permitted to retain occupation of it; for, so late as 1633, the tenant of it 
was one "Art MacMoyer.'" 

[For so far we have traced the history of our ms. regarded as a sacred relic, 
and, as one of the insignia of the See of Armagh, guarded by hereditary custo- 
dians. We now have reached the time when an intelligent study of its contents 
began, leading to an appreciation of its value. 

The memoirs and collections contained in the First (or Patrician) Division of 
the Book of Armagh, were no doubt known to most of the medieval biographers of 
St. Patrick. Probus especially, the author of the Vita Quinta (the fifth of the Lives 
printed by Colgan") (writing perhaps as early as the tenth century), depends on 
the Memoir which stands first in our ms., that of Muirchu, so closely as to 
borrow v/hole sentences with hardly even a verbal change. And probably either 

1 Reg. Octauiani, f. 268 r«. 

' In either case, the change can have been but temporary ; for it is certain, as will appear in what 
follows, that a MacMaor (Myre, or Wyre) was the owner of the Book so late as 1662. — [Ed.] 

' Inquis. Ulton., Appx. i., p. 56. — In the early maps, these towns collectively bear the name Ballemoire 
(now Ballymoyer), So also in the patent of Primate Henry Ussher, 1610. [Dr. Reeves has left a MS. note, 
' Circ. 1590, " Bally ne Moyrie, the 8 myle Church." '] 

* Inquis. Ult. (Armagh, No. 4, Jac. I.). 

5 Thus, s.a. 1587 : — " There is a great deal of land pertaining to Armagh . . . the Sargeon's land ..." 
{Calend. State Papers (Ireland), ii., p. 337). Again (1605), The Sergeantes tomne, being 8 townes (Act of 
Division of Co. of Armagh into Baronies [MS., Armagh]). So in Speed's Map of Ulster (1610) "Sergeants 
Towne"; and in other later maps of same century. " [Reeves, MS. note.] 

' Royal Visitation of Ulster, 1622. Ballymoyer, or Ballymyre, still constitutes a parish in the County 
and Diocese of Armagh (in the Barony of Upper Fews), consisting of eight townlands, most of them bearing, 
with slight modification, the same names as those given in the Inquisition of 1609. 

8 Ancestor of the Viscounts and Earls of Charlemont. 

9 Inquis. Ult. (Armagh, No. 720, Car. II.). 

1" Trias Thaum. (1647), pp. 51 et sqq. : see specially pp. 60, 61. 


It is to be regretted that Ussher has left no record of what he knew of the 
history and fortunes of the Book, though he no doubt had learned, and could 
have transmitted, many traditions concerning it, which are now irrecoverably 

Sir James Ware was more communicative. In 1656 he published his S. Patricio 
adscripta Opuscula, in which the Con/essio stands first. For this edition he collated 
our MS., which he calls by the same title as Ussher did, and thus describes 
(pp. 94, 95) : — " Codex Ecclesiae Armachanae supra memoratus continet praeter 
Confessionem S. Patricii, Biblia Sacra a versione D. Hieronymi, et antiquissimum 
exemplar Sulpicii Severi de vita S. Martini . . . tantoque olim habebatur in pretio, 
ut familia MacMoyeriana tenuerit terras a sede Armachana, ob salvam illius 
codicis custodiam. Magnam huic libro venerationem conciliavit vulgaris opinio 
manu ipsius Patricii fuisse exaratum. [He then cites the colophon (p. 48, in/r.) on 
which this belief rested, and proceeds] Ex characteris tamen genere, satis liquet 
non autographum esse, sed longe posteriori aevo transcriptum."^ 

At the date of this publication, the ms. was still in the possession of the 
Keepers — probably of the last of them, Florentinus (or Florence)' MacMoyre 
(otherwise Myre, orWyre), who has left on a blank page (f. 105 v°, p. 207, below) 
the autograph note, "Liber Flarentini Muire,^ June 29*'', 1662" — an interesting 
record, doubly valuable in that it identifies our ms. as the veritable Canoin Phadraig 
of the Keepers, ere it passed into strange hands, where its ancient veneration soon 
died away. 

In this Florence MacMoyre, the line of the Keepers of the Canon ends under a 
cloud of infamy. Eighteen years after the date of this signature, in the evil days 
of Oates and Bedloe and Dangerfield, the writer of it appears as one of a gang of 
perjurers, headed by his kinsman, one John MacMoyre, who were suborned by 
the agent of the Earl of Shaftesbury' to swear away the life of Dr. Oliver Plunket, 
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, on a false charge of high treason in 
conspiring to raise an insurrection with the support of the French King. It was 
really on this charge, though ostensibly on the less grave one of having 
remained in Ireland in the exercise of his ecclesiastical functions, contrary to 

iColgan {Tr. Th,, p. 216) refers to our Book, and prints at length (p. 213) some passages from it; but 
these, and all his informatb^^n from or about the MS., are admittedly derived from Ussher. See below, Chap. 
IX., p. cxx, for an instan\e/in which he has gone wrong by misreading a passage of the Primordia. — [Ed.] 

'Ware omits to tel'/us how he obtained access to the MS. ; but it may have been through Ussher, to 
whom he was indebtedi fjr other materials {fi^usc, Praef,, IV.). He does not notice Muirchu or Tirechan. 

^Florentinus -pio^^^hly = Flann or Fland. 

4 Or Wuire ; tJie first letter is a sort of monogram of M with W (the latter representing the aspirated 
M^. Dr. Ree-0^s, in his eatliei Memoir, writes Muire here ; but in his last, in the Proc. RJ.A., Miure. 
The former seeras to be right. — [Ed.] 

'By name- Hetherington. It was in order to give credibility to the alleged " Popish Plot" in England 
that the persons engaged in that imposture found it necessary to invent and support by hired perjury evidence 
of like plots among the Roman Catholics of Ireland. See Memoirs of Oliver Plunket, Chap, xxiii et sqq. 
(Dublin, i86i), by the Rev. Patrick Francis Moran, d.d. (now Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney, N.S.W.), 
whence much of the following account of the trial is derived. 


it, or the document which comes next in order, the Collections of Tirechan, 
has, directly or indirectly, furnished material, to a greater or less extent, for most 
of the extant Lives of the Saint. ^ But the earliest writer who may be presumed to 
have had access to the actual Canoin Pkadraig, is Jocelin, author of the Vita Sexta 
of Colgan's compilation. This writer was a monk of Chester, who (with others) 
was transferred (^circa 1 183) to the monastery of Down, and who, in his Prologue^ 
tells us that he undertook to write the Life, under the direction of Malachi, Bishop 
of Down, and of Thomas [O'Conor], Archbishop of Armagh, at the instance of 
John de Courcy, Earl of Ulster, who (he adds) held St. Patrick in special affection 
and reverence. Now this de Courcy, as we have already seen,' had actually 
taken the Canoin from the Primate, but afterwards restored it. These facts agree 
well with Jocelin's account, and suggest the belief that, through his powerful 
patron, now reconciled to the Primate, he obtained access to this very ms., and 
from it drew great part of the matter on which his work is based. — But the first 
person who is definitely known to have made literary use of the Book of Armagh 
is later by more than four centuries than Jocelin. — Ed.] 

James Ussher,* who was raised from the Bishopric of Meath to the Primacy in 
1625, in 1 63 1 published his Religion of the Ancient Irish, in which he refers to 
our MS. twice, under the title " Vet. Codex Ecclesiae Armachanae'''' ; and also cites a 
passage of the Second Book of Tirechan, De Vita Patricii^ certainly from our ms., 
for no other copy of Tirechan' s work is known to exist. Again, in his Britanni- 
carum Ecclesiarum Antiquitates, also known as Primordia (1639), he uses it more 
than twenty times — as the channel through which he drew from Tirechan, and also 
from " Maccuthenus" (that is, Muirchu Maccu Machtheni), his earliest materials 
for Irish history.^ It is not to be supposed, however, that he was ever the 
owner of it, for In his time it had become, as the Bell had, the private property 
of its Keepers, who seem to have clung to it with religious tenacity, even in the 
days of their decadence and predial dispossession ; — else it would surely have found 
its way, like so many other literary treasures, into his noble and absorbing library. 
But between 1625 and the publication of these works, and even earlier, when his 
uncle, Henry Ussher (ti6i3), was Primate, he had ample opportunity of becoming 
acquainted with it. It is certain that he had free access to it ; and it is probable 
that he was permitted to borrow it, so as to study its contents and make extracts 
from them, as we have seen. This indulgence argues a forjgving temper in the 
owner,' deprived as he had been of his lands, and reduced in condition and estate. 

' The relations between Tirechan's work and some portions of the " Vita Trt;puri^-ta'' are very close, as 
has been shown above (p. Ixxiii). But whether V. T. derives from Tirechan, or bot.I: fiom a common source, 
is not certain. — [Ed.] ^ 7>-. 7%., p. 64. ' Above, p. civ. 

■" Born 1581 ; Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, and first Professor of Divinity, i6oy ; Bi'i'hop of MeSJth, 
1621 ; Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, 1625 ; died, 1656. 

5 Ussher's Works, t. IV., pp. 318, 330 ; also p. 571 (Tirechan). — See above, p. ciii. 

« lb., t. VI., passim ; see specially p. 375. Note that his quotations from the Con/essio are sometimes 
drawn from our MS., though more usually from another text.— [Ed.] 

' Ussher's success in obtaining the use of the M.S. was due no doubt to the conciliatory spirit which so 
eminently characterized him. It may be also that, with his usual generosity, he gave foi- the loan a remu- 
neration which would be welcome to the impoverished Keeper — [Ed.] 


the King's Proclamation, that Dr. Plunket was apprehended in December, 1679, 
and committed to prison in the Castle of Dublin. 

Already, in 1 678, this John MacMoyre,' the Franciscan friar of next paragraph, " whom Dr. Plunket 
had suspended for various crimes," had laid a like accusation against him. But " so notorious was 
the character" of the informer " that the Grand Jury [Dundalk] refused to receive his testimony, 
and ordered himself to be arrested." But, unhappily, he and his fellow-informers obtained more 
ready credence afterwards. His hatred against the Archbishop was so virulent that he " often avowed 
his determination to bring him to the scaffold " ; and he " could find no other names for him than 
Elymas, Barjesus, Simon Magus, and Oliver Cromwell [!]." The addition of this last appellation is 
characteristic of the time and the country. 

After many months' imprisonment, and an abortive trial in Dundalk in July, 
1680,^ the Archbishop was transferred to London, in November of that year, and 
was there brought to trial in June, 1681, before Pemberton, Chief Justice of the 
Court of King's Bench. Of the witnesses against him, two were Franciscan 
friars,' the John MacMoyre above mentioned, and one Duffy ; two were suspended 
secular priests : the rest were laymen, one of them being " Florentinus MacMoyer, 
a schoolmaster,"* otherwise "Florence Wyre," as he is called by the Solicitor- 
General on the trial, and by other contemporaries. This man is not named 
among the original accusers ; but appears to have volunteered his testimony at 
a later stage. In order to meet the expenses of his journey to London, he had 
pledged (as will presently appear) the sacred Canoin Phadraig, of which he was 
Keeper, for five pounds. He was the first witness examined. Among other 
things, he testified that restitution to his estate (see pp. cv, cvi, supr.), when the 
insurrection should have succeeded, had been held before him as an inducement to 
join in it. He swore that Plunket had, in his presence, discussed the details of 
the plot ; and that, through his clergy, he raised large sums to further it, and 
was in correspondence with France with like intent. The others confirmed his 
evidence ; but it was on his testimony that Jefferies (then Serjeant), in summing up 
for the Crown, insisted most. To all these charges the Archbishop opposed 
the only answer in his power — his simple and solemn denial ;° but in vain. He 
was found guilty, and was executed at Tyburn, ist July (O.5.), 1681. 

There was probably no doubt, even at that time, in the minds of dispassionate observers — ^there is 
certainly none at the present day — that this execution was one of the judicial murders that disgraced 
that unhappy period. Considering the exemplary life and sacred character of the victim, it must be 
admitted that his suffragan, Dr. Cusack, Bishop of Meath, rightly designates it as a " sacrilegious 

' Moran, Memoirs, as above, p. 282. 

2 Burnet writes, in his History of His Own Times (1724), Vol. I., p. 282 :— "The foreman of the Jury 
[apparently the Dundalk Grand Jury of 1680], who was a zealous Protestant, told me they ["some leud 
Irish priests "] contradicted one another so evidently that they [the Jury] would not find the bill."— [Ed.] 

^ See Moran, Memoirs, as above, pp. 298-301. 

^ See, for these men, and the motives by which they were actuated, a letter from Dr. Cusack, Roman 
Catholic Bishop of Meath, quoted by Moran (as above, p. 307), written in August, 1681. 

' " As I am a dying man, and hope for salvation by my Lord and Saviour, I am not guilty of one point 
of treason they have sworn against me" (Moran, p. 338) — " I was never acquainted with them [the lay 
witnesses]. ... I never saw them in my life " {ib., pp. 354, 359)- 


parricide.'" Burnet, in his brief narrative of the trial, plainly indicates his opinion that the charges 
were false ; and he tells us, on the authority of the Earl of Essex, that " this Plunket was a wise and 
sober man," and " was for living quietly and in due submission to the Government, without engaging 
into intrigues of State."* His account, so far as it goes, confirms Moran's in many particulars. He 
adds (p. 284) that, within the same year, "the Irish witnesses" were forthcoming with like evidence 
against their employer, Shaftesbury, when he, in his turn, was indicted for high treason. — Of the 
identity of the "Florence Wyre" who expected to be restored to his lands, with the "Florentinus 
Muire" (or Wuire) who, a few years before, wrote himself owner of the Book, there can be no 
question. The words in which the Archbishop's biographer points the moral of the perjurer's 
history, make it part of the history of the Book, by showing how, through his crime, it passed from 
his unworthy hands. " He was the head of the family which enjoyed the hereditary right to keep and 
guard the Book of Armagh. Providence, however, so arranged that, in punishment of his guilt, he 
should lose this long-treasured inheritance, and be compelled through poverty to part with, for a mere 
trifle, that precious relic of the early Irish Church."' — [Ed.] 

Nor was this loss his only punishment. Though used as Crown witnesses, he and his kinsman 
lay under such suspicion that after their return to Ireland they were again imprisoned. So late as 
June, 1683, we read that "they continue still in prison, where they suffer great privations, and are 
almost dead from hunger, finding none who will give them food, so abhorred are they by all."'' 
Florence Wyre, however, recovered his liberty and returned to his native place ; but so impoverished, 
that he was never able to redeem and recover the sacred heirloom which he had inherited from his 
fathers, and had parted with for such evil purposes. He survived his release some thirty years, in 
abject poverty and detestation.^ 

It is certain, then, that in or soon after the year 1680 the ms. was sold or 
pledged by the last of its hereditary Keepers. After that it passes from sight for 
a short interval ; but in 1707 it reappears, in other and worthier hands. In that 
year Edward Lhwyd, Keeper of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, published the 
first volume of his Archmologia Britannica, subjoined to which is a Catalogue of 
Irish Manuscripts containing the following entry (No. iv., p. 436): — "Arthur 
Brownlow, of Lurgan, Clan Brasil, in the County of Down,^ has the mss. 
following," Then, after reciting the titles of twelve books, he adds : — " Books 
mentioned in a letter lately received from Ireland, as mss. now extant there." Of 
these, the first is " Leabhap Ctpoa IDacha"' (Book of Armagh). Lhwyd, when 
he printed this list, appears to have had no knowledge of the contents or history 
of the MS. so entitled ; but its identity with our ms. is certain. For after publish- 
ing the Archaeologia—hnt not long after, for he died in 1709— ^he was enabled 

1 Bishop Cusack's letter, as above. "^History of His Own Times, as above. 

'Moran, pp. 317, 318. The memorandum of Edward Lhwyd, given at length below, confirms and adds 
to Moran's judgment and statements. It is, moreover, a further example of dispassionate contemporary 
opinion of Plunket's innocence and the perjury of his accusers. 

^Letter {ap. Moran, p. 306) from the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel. — [Ed.] 

" A rude flagstone was placed over his grave in the churchyard of Ballymoyer, inscribed : " [Here lyeth 
the] body of Florence Wyre who dyed Feb. the 12. 1713." The upper part of it has been broken off ; and a 
custom prevailed of insulting it yearly with marked indignities. It was removed some years ago by 
Mr. Synnot, the owner of Ballymoyer, to his residence, to preserve it from further injury. None of the name 
of MacMoyer or Wyre is now or has within recent memory been living in the neighbourhood ; but it is 
supposed that, because of the infamy brought on the name by the informers, the family assumed that of 
Maguire, which is similar in sound, though remote in origin. There is a tradition that Florence and his 
brothers lived in Ballinlate, one of the Keeper's townlands, at a place called Glenawyre, and within the 
memory of persons still living [when Dr Reeves wrote in 1861] the ruins of his house were to be seen. 

« The Barony of Clan Brasil (now O'Neilland East) is part of the County of Armagh, in which Lurgan is 
situate, on the border of Down. 

■' Keating {Hist, of Ireland, Pref., p. xxi) applies this title to a different MS. 


(whether by written information received from the possessor, or by personal 
inspection) to draw up a detailed account of the Book. This memorandum was 
not published in his lifetime, but after his death was found amongst his papers, 
and placed in the hands of Dr. Charles O' Conor, who printed it in the Epistola 
Nuncupatoria prefixed to the first volume (published in 1813) of his great work, 
Rerum Hibernicarum Scriptores, He introduces it as follows (addressing his 
patron, the Marquis of Buckingham) : — 

" LI. Liber Ardmachanus. Sequentia de hoc libro ex doctissimi Humphredi' 
Lhwydi schedis descripta, perhumaniter ad me transmisit ex Wallia praelaudatus 
tuus nepos Carolus Williams Wynne : ^ — 

"Codex hie, ultra omne dubium, perquam antiquus est, sive manu ipsius 
S. Patricii partim conscriptus (uti habetur ad calcem folio 24"), sive sit, quod 
mihi verisimilius videtur, alicujus posterioris aevi opus. Et forsan est ille ipse 
Textus Evangeliorum, quem divus. Bernardus, in Vita Malachice^ inter insignia 
Aedis Armachanae numerat, et textum ipsius Patricii fuisse narrat. Ab Usserio 
et Waraeo 'Liber Ardmachanus,' ab indigenis vero 'Liber Canonum S. Patricii'' 
nuncupatur, a Canonibus concordantium inter se Evangelistarum, folio 26to 
incaeptis, sic (ut opinor) nbminatus.* Liber hie ab Hibernigenis magna olim 
habebatur in pretio, adeo. ut familia ilia, vulgo vocata Mac Maor, Anglice 
Mac Moyre, nomen suum a custodiendo hoc libro mutuatum habeat ; Maor enim 
Hibernice Custos est, et Maor na Ccanon, sive Custos Canonum, tota ilia familia 
communiter appellata fuit ; et octo villulas in agro' . . . , terras de Balli Moyre 
dictas, a sede Ardmachana olim tenuit, ob salvam hujus libri custodiam ; in 
quorum manibus, multisjam retro saeculis, liber hie extitit, usque dum Florentinus 
McMoyre in Angliam se contulit, sub anno salutis humanae 1680, ut testimonium 
perhiberet, quod vereor non verum,* versus Oliverum Plunket Theologiae Doc- 
torem, et regni hujus, secundum Romanos, Archipraesulem, qui Londini, immerito 
(ut creditur), furca plexus est. Deficientibus autem in Moyro nummis, in decessu 
suo, Codicem hunc pro quinque libris sterl. ut pignus deposuit. Hinc ad manus 

1 This is an error for Edwardi (repeated by Betham, Petrie, and others). Humphrey Lhwyd (a notable 
antiquarian of the Tudor period) died 1568 ; Edward JLhwyd was bom 1670, a century later. 

* The Right Hon. Charles Watkin Williams Wynn, D.C.L., M.P., was born in 1775, second son of 
Sir Watkin Williams Wynn (4th Baronet), of Wynnstay, and nephew of the above-named Marquis of 
Buckingham, his mother being Charlotte Grenville, sister of that nobleman. His interest in antiquarian 
studies naturally brought him into contact with O'Conor, his uncle's Librarian at Stowe. Among the 
unpublished papers of Lhwyd, which his father Sir W. W. Wynn had purchased in 1807, he found, and com-, 
municated to O'Conor, this memorandum relating to the Book of Armagh, and also some copies of Ogham 
inscriptions {Efist. Nuncuf., p. xxxiii). These papers are reported to have since perished in a fire 
(Williams, Eminent Welshmen, p. 290). Charles Williams Wynn was a Cabinet Minister for many years 
(1822-1828). He died "Father of the House of Commons," in 1850. — [Ed.] 

' See above, p. civ. 

* On the explanation of the title Canon, see above, p. cii, note *. 

* A blank here ; apparently Lhwyd was uncertain in what county the Keeper's estate lay (cp. note S 
last page). 

« Lhwyd therefore (a contemporary) shared Burnet's disbelief in the witnesses against Plunket.— [Ed.] ' 

O 2 


Arthur! Brownlowe' gratissime pervenit qui, non sine magno labore, disjuncta 
tunc folia debito suo ordine struxit, numeros in summo libri posuit folia desig- 
nantes, aliosque in margine addidit capita distinguentes, eademque folia sic 
disposita prisco suo velamine'' (ut jam videre licet) compingi curavit, et in 
prisca sua theca' conservari fecit, una cum bulla quadam Romani Pontificis cum 
eodem inventa. Continet in se quaedam fragmenta Vitae S. Patricii a diversis 
authoribus, iisque plerumque anonymis, conscripta. Continet etiam Confessionem 
S. Patricii, vel (ut magis proprie dicam) Epistolam suam ad Hibernos, turn 
nuperrime ad fidem conversos. Continet etiam Epistolam quam scripsit Divus 
Hieronymus ad Damasum Papam, per modum Prooemii ad Versionem. Continet 
etiam Canones decem in quibus ostenduntur Concordantiae inter se Evangelist- 
arum, ac etiam breves causas, sive interpretationes uniuscujusque seorsim 
Evangelistae, necnon Novum Testamentum, juxta versionem (ut opinor) Divi 
Hieronymi, in quo reperitur epistola ilia ad Laodicenses cujus fit mentio ad 
Colossenses. In Epistola prima Johannis deest versus ille, Tres sunt in caelo, etc. 
Continet etiam Hebraeorum nominum quae in singulis Evangeliis reperiuntur 
explicationes, una cum v^riis variorum argumentis ad singula Evangelia et ad 
unamquamque fere Epistolam referentibus. Continet denique Vitam S. Martini 
Episcopi Turonensis (avunculi ut fertur, S. Patricii), a Sulpitio Severo conscrip- 
tam. — Nota quod in Evangelic sec. Matthaeum, desiderantur quatuor (ut ego 
existimo) folia, scilicet a versu tricesimo tertio capitis decimiquarti, usque ad 
vers. 5, capitis xxi. — Nota etiam quod Epistolae Apostolorum non sunt eodem 
ordine dispositae, quo vulgo apud nos hodierno die reperiuntur." 

This very ample memorandum, which we owe to Lhwyd's scholarly diligence, is no doubt based 
(as regards the history of the ms.) on information derived from Brownlow, and by him from the 
MacMoyers. Thus it supplies a traditionary account, independent and confirmatory of what we have 
gathered from documentary evidence, of the Book and its Keepers. From Brownlow evidently came 
such particulars as the "eight townlands" of Ballymoyer, and (of course) the details of the work 
done by him in rearranging and binding the leaves of the dilapidated volume. But as a whole, the 
note is undoubtedly Lhwyd's.* In fact, the sentence ' quatuor {ut ego existimo) folia ' conveys a 
correction of Brownlow's numbering, which allowed for but three lost leaves : Lhwyd, in substituting 
his own correct estimate ol four (see p. xiii, supr.), implies a personal examination of the MS. It 
must have been a careful one as regards the New Testament division of the Book ; for he refers by 
number to fF. 24 (quoting the colophon there appended) and 26 (where the Eusebian Tables begin) ; 
and he specifies with exactness the other introductory matter prefixed to the Gospels. He notices 
also the displacement of the order of the Epistles^ [of St. Paul], and the inclusion of the pseudo- 

' Arthur Chamberlain (1644-1712) assumed his mother's name of Brownlow on succeeding (1660) to 
the estates, in the County of Armagh, of her father, Sir William Brownlow. From him these estates, and 
the Book, were inherited by three successive William Brownlows, his son, grandson, and great-grandson. 
The last of these died childless (1815) ; and though the estates then devolved on his next brother Charles 
afterwards Baron Lurgan, ancestor of the present Lord Lurgan, the Book passed to a younger brother 
the Rev. Francis Brownlow, of Knapton, as residuary legatee. From his son, William, the sixth and last 
Brownlow owner, it was finally purchased in 1853 by Dr. Reeves, as related below. 

' The old binding is still preserved. 

' SciL, the polaire, above mentioned, p. cii. 

■• Lhwyd certainly visited Ireland at some time. If the memorandum were Brownlow's, there would not 
have been a blank left for the name of the county (or barony) in which Ballymoyer was situated, which 
must have been familiarly known to him. 

* SciL, the transfer of Colossians to stand after i and 2 Thessalonians. 


Epistle to the Laodiceans. Further, he points out the notable omission of the verse i John v. 7,— ^ 
the most important textual fact yielded by the ms., but one that would hardly have been noticed by 
any but a well-informed scholar of academic training. But of the Patrician documents, he notes only 
the one which stands last, and for which the ms. had already been consulted by Ussher and Ware, — 
the Confessio. The preceding records he includes in one general description as "certain fragments 
of a Life of St. Patrick, written by divers authors mostly anonymous." It thus appears that he made 
but a cursory examination of this part of the MS. It seems fair to infer that if it had been complete 
when he saw it — that is, if the first leaf had not then been wanting as now — he would not have failed 
to observe that Muirchu's Life is complete in itself — not a ^^ fragment of a Life " — and in no way 
connected with Tirechan's work or with the subjoined additamenta. And (assuming that the name of 
Muirchu was prefixed on f. i r°, as that of Tirechan on f. 9 r°) he would hardly have affirmed that 
the "fragments" were "wioj/Zy anonymous."' For the loss of the first leaf, therefore, it is probable 
that the hereditary Keepers, and not Arthur Brownlow, are responsible. See farther in Chapter ix. 
(pp. cxvii-cxxi, infr.^ — [Ed.] 

It is certain, then, that the Book of Armagh, after it had been consulted by 
Ussher and (perhaps) by Ware, was given in pledge, as security for a petty loan, 
in 1680, and that it was in Mr. Arthur Brownlow' s possession before 1707. Who 
was the holder, or how it was dealt with, in the meantime, we are not informed, 
nor is it important to know. The essential fact in the history of its transmission 
is, that the new owner had come into possession of the ms. some six years or more 
before the death of the last hereditary Keeper; — for (as we have seen) Florence 
MacMoyre (or Wyre) died in I7i-f-. 

Thus, in the first decade of the eighteenth century, the Book of Armagh 
enters on the tenth century of its life, and on the second period of its history, 
in the keeping of the Brownlow family, with whom it remained for six genera- 
tions — about a century and a half. For more than a hundred years after it 
changed hands, it seems to have lain unnoticed, until, in the time of Arthur 
Brownlow' s fifth successor in the ownership, the Rev. Francis Brownlow, into 
whose hands it came in 18 15, it attracted the attention of Dr. Williapi Magee 
(Archbishop of Dublin, 1822— 1831).'' Through him Sir William Bethara obtained 
knowledge of its existence, and permission to study its contents and lay them 
before the public. Accordingly, in his Irish Antiquarian Researches^ (1827), 
Betham gave a copious Memoir of it, which occupies the second part of that 
work, together with the contents of the first twenty-four leaves as deciphered 
by him, — and is illustrated by several carefully executed facsimile engravings. 
To him accordingly belongs the credit of being the first to publish, not only 
a detailed account of the Book, but also the full text of the Patrician documents 
which occupy that part of the First (or Patrician) Division of it. The work done 
by him, though not complete, and far from accurate, was of high value as a first 
step towards the farther results attained by subsequent investigators.* The owner 

' In the above, it is assumed that the '■ fragmenta Viiae' were the two Lives with the subjoined short 
documents. But perhaps the term 'fragmenta ' may imply that the Patrician part of the MS. was incom- 
plete when he examined it, — i.e., that the first leaf was wanting. 

' Formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin ; author of the once-noted work on the Atonement. 

' See, for these facts, Researches, p. 322. 

* Betham communicated some supplemental matter in 1836 to the Christian Examiner (3rd Series, 
vol. III., p. 308 et sqq.). 


afterwards permitted others (apparently Dr. Petrie before 1837, Mr. H. J. Monck 
Mason in 1844, and Mr. O'Donovan in 1845) to have the use of our ms. In 
1846 he deposited it in the Library of the Royal Irish Academy, where it should 
be accessible to scholars and antiquarians. 

Dr. Petrie has left proof that he studied the Patrician documents in our MS. diligently ; for, in 
his Tara, he quotes it frequently and at length." He wrote after Betham ; but his citations are 
free from the errors of Betham's text, and he must therefore have had access to the MS., to 
the folios of which he refers by number for every extract he makes. He was the first to point 
out (what Ussher, however, appears to have discovered before him — see p. cxxi, infr.') that the 
Preface of Muirchu Maccu Machtheni, with appended Table of Capita (f. 20), belongs to the first 
Book of the Life of St. Patrick, which occupied ff. 1-7 r" of the ms. when entire. — [Ed.J 

This act of well-judged liberality on the part of the owner led speedily to 
excellent results, by bringing the ms. within the reach of a scholar of the highest 
critical acumen, who brought to bear on it his rare faculties of observation and 
inference, — Charles Graves, afterwards Bishop of Limerick.^ Before the end of 
the year 1846, in which the ms. was lodged in the Academy's Library, he had 
ascertained its date and the name of the scribe to whom it is due, and com- 
municated his results to the Academy in a Paper read before them in the 
November of that year.' They may be briefly summed up as follows : — Besides 
the effaced subscriptions noticed by Dr. Graves* (see above, pp. xiv, xv), in one 
of which (f. 2 15 r" a) he detected the still legible name *■ Ferdomnach^ he deciphered 
a fifth (on f. 53 v° «, at the end of St. Matthew), written not like the others in the 
ordinary minuscule of the text of the ms., but in the pseudo-Greek uncial which 
the scribe here and there affects,' — which he read thus, "ferdomn]ach hung 

[libru^m E DicTANTE . . . [b]ach herede patricii scripsit." The 

writer therefore worked under the direction of an ^^Heir (or comharb) of Patrick," 
that is, a Primate of Armagh, whose name, apparently a dissyllable, ended in 
.... ach (probably in . . . back). Now, two, and only two, scribes of this name, 
both of them men of eminence, are recorded in the Annals ; of whom one died 
in 727, the other in 845.* But the only "Heir of Patrick," contemporary with 
either Ferdomnach, whose name suits the indication of the subscription thus partly 
restored, is Torbach, whose primacy began and ended in 807.' It follows therefore 
that the ms. was written by the younger Ferdomnach, and that he finished writing 
the First Gospel in that year, — on the Feast (as another entry in the same column 
tells us) of St. Matthew. And thus, with singular exactness. Dr. Graves 
arrived at 21st September, 807, as the date of these entries. 

■ See Tara, p. 23, ei passim. 

» Then a Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, and Professor of Mathematics ; died, 1899. 

3 Proc. R.I.A., pp. 316-324, vol. III. (1846). 

•' Previously by Mr. Eugene O'Curry, who first directed Dr. Graves's attention to them. 

» See Plate 11. for a facsimile of this column, and also the print of Graves's restoration of the effaced 
subscription, on p. cxvi, infr. — Note the colophon in Greek characters immediately following the close of the 
Gospel. The (restored) subscription occupied the discoloured space at foot of the column. — [Ed.] 

' Ann. Ult., 1. 1., p. 350 ; Four MM., t. I., p. 470. ' Ann, Ult., t. I., p. 292. 


Dr. Graves followed up this important result by another even more important, reached by a still 
more signal exercise of the critical faculty — the emendation, as convincing as brilliant, of the text of 
the Preface of Muirchu (f. 20 r' a), {Coguiiosi, for cogniio si), by which (see p. xix, supr.) he proved that 
Muirchu was the son of the biographer of St. Brigid.* 

The date thus determined for our MS. agrees well with the indication yielded by the character of 
the script ; and it has been accepted not only by Bishop Reeves, but by the latest editors and critics 
of the Patrician documents — alike by Dr. Whitley Stokes and Dr. Strachan,' by the Rev. E. Hogan, s.j.,' 
by Dr. Bury,* by the late Professor Berger," and by Professor Zimmer :° — and also by antiquarians and 
palaeographers ; by the late Sir John T. Gilbert,' and by Sir E. Maunde Thompson.' — [Ed. J 

After the death, in 1847, of the Rev. Francis Brownlow, his son and successor 
in the ownership of the Book allowed it to continue in the same place of deposit. 
Together with a collection of select objects from the Academy's Museum, it 
occupied a place in the Dublin Exhibition of 1853, bearing a descriptive label, 
to which were added the words, ' To be sold^ Dr. Reeves, on observing this 
notice, forthwith entered into correspondence with its owner, and on the 4th 
November of the same year became its purchaser for ;^300. In his possession 
it remained but a few months. In the next year, through the intervention of 
Dr. James Henthorn Todd, Senior Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin (f 1 869),^ 
Dr. Reeves surrendered it, for the same sum which he had paid for it, to the then 
X.ord Primate of All Ireland, Lord John George Beresford," who (being at that 
time Chancellor of the University of Dublin) purchased it in order to present it to 
the Library of Trinity College. The particulars of this munificent gift appear in 
the College Records as follows : — " 1854, July 7. — His Grace the Most Rev. 
Lord John George Beresford, d.d.. Lord Primate, placed in the hands of the 
Rev. Dr. Todd, for the purchase of the Book of Armagh, on the understanding 
that the Book is to remain in the hands of the Rev. William Reeves, d.d., until 
he has prepared his copy of it for publication, and that afterwards it shall be 
deposited in the Library of Trinity College, the sum of ;^300." 

The MS. remained accordingly at the disposal of Dr. Reeves, to whom its 
acquisition by Trinity College was so largely due, from that day until his death 
in January, 1892 ; and to it and. investigation bearing on its history and contents 
lie devoted not a little of the time he was able to reserve for the study of it in 
an active and fully occupied life. During great part of these years, he allowed 
it to remain in Trinity College, accessible freely to all readers in the Library, It 
was thus made available for the use of the Rev. Father Hogan, who printed from 
it, in 1884— 1889," the Patrician documents, edited with much care and learning, — 

1 Proc. R.I.A. (1863), vol. viii., pp. 269 et sqq. " V. T., t. I., p. xc ; Thesaur. Palceo-hib., p. xv. 

^ Anal. Bolland., Bruxelles, 1882, p. 534. * Life of St. Patrick, p. 225 ; and in other writings. 

« Hist, de la Vulg., p. 31. « Celtic Ch. (tr. by A. Meyer), p. 8. 

' National MSS., p. xvi. » Palceogra^phy, p. 242. 

' Author of St. Patrick, Apostle of Ireland (1863), and many other well-known and most important 
•contributions to the knowledge of Irish ecclesiastical history and antiquities. — [Ed.] 

" Bom 1773 ; second son of the first Marquis of Waterford ; Bishop of Cork, 1806 ; Archbishop of 
Armagh, 1822; died, 1862. — [Ed.] 

^^ Analecta Bolland. ,t.i.,^p. ^:ii et sqq.; t.iz.,-^^.^^ et sqq.; zi^etsqq.: reprinted 1884 separately, 
and completed 1889. 


and of Dr. Whitley Stokes, who derived from it the text of the same which 
he has appended to his edition of the V. T. The New Testament text which it 
contains has also been transcribed for the use of Dr. Wordsworth, Bishop of 
Salisbury ; and its readings are given in full in the great edition of the Vulgate 
Gospels, edited by him jointly with the Rev. H. J. White.' Soon after the 
purchase of the ms.. Dr. Reeves issued a Prospectus of a complete edition of 
its contents; and of his preparations for it there remains a large collection of 
written material, — the chief being (i) an interleaved and annotated copy of 
the Memoir of 1861 ; (2) a transcript of the Patrician documents fully furnished 
with collations of the Tripartite and other Lives of St. Patrick ; and (3) a 
collation of the printed (Clementine) Vulgate with the Armagh text, and (for 
the Gospels) the texts of the Vulgate mss. jn Trinity College Library, known 
as the Books of Durrow, Kells, Dimma, and Mulling, and with the Old Latin ms. 
A. 4, 15 (usually designated r).^ Of these mss. he has also left a collation with 
the Amiatine text. But the scale on which the contemplated edition was planned 
was too large for the limits of his remaining years ; and those years were more 
than filled with the manifold labours, historical and antiquarian, implied in the 
ample and varied list of his publications after 1853, of which his edition (1857) of 
AdamnarC s Life of St. Columba alone seems sufficient for the work of a lifetime. 
And thus it has come to pass that the Memoir issued by him in 1861, together 
with the Paper read by him before the Royal Irish Academy in 1891 — of which 
the greater part is reproduced in substance, and often verbatim, in this and the 
first Chapter — are the only published fruits of his studies in the history and 
contents of the Book of Armagh. — [Ed.] 

1 Pars Prior 1889-1898 (iv Evangelia); Partis Secundae Fasc. i., 1905 (Actus A^;p.). Our MS. is 
" D" in the A;pparatus Criticus of this edition. It has also been consulted by the late Professor Berger, 
for his Histoire de la Vulgate (pp. 31-33). 

^ Since edited by Dr. T. K. Abbott, Evangeliorum Versio Antehieronymiana. 

Note on j5. cxiv, n, 5. 
The obliterated colophon on f. 53 a'a; with Dr. Graves's partial restoration subjoined: — 

In Greek Characters. 

In Latin Characters. 

















In Chapter I. a brief account has been given (pp. xiii, xiv) of the general 
arrangement and construction of the ms. In the present Chapter — which pro- 
poses to treat in fuller detail of its structure, ornaments, marginalia, and other 
distinctive features, and also to describe its present condition — it will be conve- 
nient to deal separately with each of its three natural Divisions. These are — 
(I.) The Patrician Documents (which, when entire, occupied ff. 1—24); (II.) The 
New Testament (ff. 25—190); (III.) Memoirs of St. Martin (ff. 191—222). 

A. The First Division, as we now have it, consists of twenty-three leaves. 
But the beginning of the first document is wanting, and the contents of the first 
extant leaf open abruptly in the middle of a sentence, showing that the ms. has 
lost something here. But on comparing this leaf with the corresponding part of 
the Brussels ms. {B; see above, p. xiv, and cp. p. 444 a, infr.), it appears that 
the loss is of but one leaf. Accordingly, we may safely accept the numbering of 
the extant leaves, from 2 to 24. — All of these are complete : but (see pp. civ, cv, 
supr.) the verso of f. 12 and the recto of f. 13 (pp. 24, 25, which face one another) 
are disfigured to a degree and in a manner quite unlike anything else to be seen 
in the volume, especially the lower outer corners of both, and the inner margin 
of f. 12. This grievous damage is no doubt due to the custom of requiring 
persons who were sworn, as above described, on the " Canoin Pkadraig," to lay 
their hands on the book, — open, as manifestly appears, at this place,^ — and also 
of pouring water over the pages in order to impart to it supernatural virtues. 
The stains caused by this treatment extend from these to the following leaves. 

Of the twenty-three leaves, as they now stand, the ten which come first (f. i 
being absent), numbered 2 to 11, form a quinio. They are followed by a single 
pair (ff. 12, 13). Next comes a ternio (ff. 14—19); and finally, an irregular 
gathering of five leaves (ff. 20—24.) This disposition of the leaves, which is due to 
Mr. Brownlow and the binder employed by him (see pp. cxii, cxiii), is graphically 
shown by the subjoined scheme : — 

[i] 2 34 S 67 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 

' The first natural opening of the volume would be between its first and second quires, — that is, between 
ff. 12 and 13. At this place, then, it would usually be opened — probably would lie open — for the laying on 
of hands, and for the application of water, as above. 


But examination of the pair of leaves, ff. 12, 13, which thus deviate from the 
general quire-arrangement, discloses the fact that they do not form a diploma (a 
pair resulting from the folding of a sheet into two leaves) — but are two several 
leaves, neatly joined lengthwise by a strip of thin vellum, to which they are glued 
along their inner edges. On closer scrutiny, it becomes evident that this is no 
case of mere repair of a sheet that had become casually divided. The vellum of 
f. 13 is so much thicker and harder than that off. 12, as to exclude the possibility 
that the two can have originally been halves of one and the same sheet. It 
follows, therefore, that we have to account for the presence of two single leaves 
interposed between two quires. And looking farther, we note that f. 20 also is a 
single leaf, glued on to the final binio (ff. 21—24) so as to make up the quasi-quire 
of five leaves above indicated. Thus the question is. How has it come to pass 
that in this small collection of leaves^twenty-four originally, of which one is 
lost — three stand thus apart from the rest and from one another — each a single 
leaf, not one of a pair constituting a diploma ? 

As regards f. 12, the state of its verso explains but too plainly how it came to 
be a detached leaf. It is due to the deplorable ill-usage which, as above noted 
(last page), f. 12 v" with 13 r' has suffered. That the former leaf has been badly 
damaged along its inner margin, is shown by the state of the edge by which it 
adheres to the strip now connecting it with f. 13. This edge, though trimmed 
by the binder, is visibly decayed all along its length. A leaf so treated could 
hardly fail to become detached from its conjugate. But, inasmuch as the pre- 
ceding ten leaves (ff. 2-1 1) are all duly paired, the conjugate thus missing can be 
no other than the lostf. i. It follows then that the first quire of the ms. was a senio 
of which ff. I, 12 formed the outermost diploma; and the loss off. i was the conse- 
quence of the damaged state of the inner margin of its fellow. Once they fell 
asunder, the former, a loose first leaf, in the most unsafe position possible, would 
inevitably be lost before long. — We may go farther, and conclude that it was lost 
before the ms. came into Mr. Brownlow's careful hands ; for if it had been forth- 
coming when he arranged the leaves for the binder, he could not have failed to 
perceive that it formed a pair with f 12, and he would certainly have directed 
that they should be reunited as such, — as he has done in case of ff. 2 and 11, 
which also had evidently become (or threatened to become) detached. 

This explanation of the case of f. 12 explains also that of f. 13, and with it 
that of f. 20. After the loss of its conjugate, f. 12 needed to be made safe from 
a like fate. This was done, as we see, by securing it with glue and a strip of 
vellum to f 13. The latter, though its redo is defaced as seriously as its opposite 
page (the verso of f. 12), being of vellum of more than usual thickness, is not 
decayed like the former. In order, therefore, to adapt it to the required use, 
f. 13 has been severed (the clean-cut edge is plainly to be seen) from its conjugate 
before being glued to the strip which now couples it with f, 12. — And the con- 
jugate from which it was thus cut away is obviously f. 20 — a leaf of thick vellum, 
like f. 13 — which, as we have seen, is now irregularly combined with the following 


binio, so as to form a quasi-quire of five leaves. Thus the true positions of ff. 13 
and 20, before this operation was effected, was that of outermost diploma of a 
quaternio, following a senio, and followed by a binio. Accordingly the original 
quire-arrangement is to be restored, as follows, in three quires [senio, quaternio, 
binio, as above, p. xiv) : — 

(I.) (II.) (III.) 

[i] 2 3 4 567 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 

Thus the process by which the leaves 2-24 were brought into their present 
arrangement was as follows : — After the two leaves of the outer diploma of quire i 
had parted company, and f. i had been lost, f. 1 2 was left as a loose leaf. For 
its safety, Mr. Brownlow coupled it with f. 13, so as to form a quasi-pair, having 
cut the latter from its natural partner, f. 20 ; which last he then secured by 
attaching it as a sort of outer semi-diploma to ff. 21—24. ^^ this last case the 
attachment is effected, not by supplying a strip to serve as a hinge, but by 
cementing the edge (that remained with f. 20 after f. 13 had been cut off from it) 
to the inner margin of the verso of f. 24. The edges of the sundered parts 
correspond, as well as the quality of the very thick vellum of the two : and the 
breadth (ii^ in.) of the diploma formed by combining f. 20 with f. 13, agrees 
accurately with that of the other sheets. 

Accordingly, the facts of the present state of the ms., as still to be seen, and of 
its original structure, as arrived at by inference, lead us to accept as certain what 
was above suggested (pp. xiv, cxiii) as possible, — that the first leaf had already 
been lost before Mr. Brownlow took the volume in hand and rearranged its frag- 
mentary parts ; and further, that the figure "2" which he has placed on the leaf 
which now stands first, indicates, not that leaf i was in his possession with the 
rest, but that he perceived that a leaf — and rightly conjectured that not more 
than one leaf — was missing. 

And here the question may properly be raised, When was f. i lost ? 

Dr. Petrie has affirmed {Tara, p. 86) that "the first folio of this Life 
[Muirchu'sJ has been lost since the Book [of Armagh] was in the possession' of 
Archbishop Ussher." For this statement his ground is {ib., p. 85) that Ussher 
in his Primordial p. 832, gives a long extract from it \jc., from the Life by 
Muirchu, Ussher's '^ Maccuthenus'"']. And inasmuch as this "extract" treats 
of the earlier periods of St. Patrick's history, and is not found anywhere in the 
extant leaves of our ms., Petrie assumes that Ussher must have copied it from 
the now missing f. i. — But the supposed "extract" from our ms. proves, when 

^ Ussher had the use of it as borrower only ; see above, p. cvii. 

' ^y Primordia, Petrie means Britannicarum Ecclesiarum Antiquitates [£.£.A.), published 1639. 
It is in vol. vi. of Ussher's Works, pp. 390 etsqq. 

P 2 


examined, not to be a citation from Muirchu's Life, but to consist of two passages 
of Patrick's own Con/essio^ [_ss. 23, 25 of White's text]. — The opening capiia (1-7) 
of Muirchu i., which have disappeared from our ms. with its lost leaf, are now 
known (as supplied by the Brussels ms. of Muirchu — see p. xviii, supr.), and the 
passages in question are not to be found in them, but in their stead two passages 
{cc. 3 and 4 ; pp. 443, 444, in/r.) which correspond with them partly in substance, 
but in wording are quite distinct from them. And further, not one of Ussher's 
many references to " Maccuthenus " relates to anything contained in these 
recovered capita. Every such reference, when verified, proves to belong to 
something that is to be found in the still extant leaves of the ms., as we now 
have it. Thus, Petrie's statement turns out to be founded on a mistake; and 
there is no evidence that Ussher ever saw the missing f. i, while there is evidence 
that he used the contents of some at least of the leaves (ff. 2-24) that survive — 
notably f. 20. So far then as Ussher's citations and references give ground for 
inference, they lead to the conclusion that the ms. as he knew it had already lost 
its first leaf. 

It must be admitted that Ussher's manner of introducing this " extract " is such as to be readily 
misunderstood. He writes as follows {op. cit., p. 390) : — "De hac secunda captura quam senis decies 
dtebus ab inimicis pertuhrat, uf apud Maccuthenum legimus, in Confessione Pairiciana hahentur ista : ' Et 

iterum post annos multos adhuc capturam dedi. Ea node prima utique mansi ' ", &c. Here, the 

words '^ ut apud Maccuthenum legimus" are meant to relate to the preceding sentence only ("2?« \hac'\ 

secunda pertuhrat"), which sentence is tit. 3, verbatim (see f. 20 r° a, and p. xviii, supr.). But 

it has naturally been read as applying to the passages that follow, though they are expressly cited 
as from the Con/essio; and thus the impression conveyed is, that Muirchu had in his early capita 
inserted these portions of Patrick's writing, in Patrick's words, unchanged. 

Colgan, to whom Petrie here refers, was the first to be led into mistake in the matter. In his 
Trias Thaumaturga (published 1647), p. 213, he gives at full length the "extract," describing it as 
cited by Ussher "ex tractatu S. Moccuteni." But at the same time he expressly notes that it consists 
of two passages of the Con/essio, evidently supposing that Ussher had derived them, not immediately 
from the Con/essio itself, but at second-hand from the Li/e of " Maccuthenus,'' as embodied by him in 
its text. The error was excusable, — almost inevitable, in view of Ussher's misleading ambiguity of 
expression, above noted. Moreover, Colgan never had opportunity of consulting our ms. and verifying 
the references to " Maccuthenus," of whose work he only knew what he learned from Ussher's book 
(then recent). Even with the Con/essio (then unpublished) he was acquainted but indirectly, in chance 
citations, gathered here and there. 

But Dr. Petrie, who had our MS. at hand, as well as the printed Con/essio in full, might be 
expected to have perceived that the "extract" was taken by Ussher from the Con/essio direct, and 
could not have formed part of Muirchu's Li/e, inasmuch as it is Muirchu's uniform practice, in 
borrowing from the Con/essio the statements of St. Patrick, not to cite them verbatim in the first person, 
but to assimilate them by throwing them into the third person and altering the language more or less 
freely. It was not, however, until many years after Dr. Petrie's death that the evidence of the 
Brussels MS. {B) came to light, and conclusively settled all question in the matter, by furnishing direct 
proof that cc. 1-7 of Muirchu i. contained nothing that has been cited or referred to by Ussher ; and 
thus removed the only ground for supposing that f. i still formed part of our ms. when it was in his 

Ussher's references to the authority of " Maccuthenus " need a few words of explanation. 

In recounting (in 1639) the early writings concerning St. Patrick which he had been able to 

1 Ussher cites these not from our MS., but irom the Cotton MS. "C " (Nero, E.I.) ; which was his main 
authority for the text of the Con/essio. See White, L.S.P., pp. 20Q, 210. 


consult (5.^.^., ut supr., pp. 374, 37s), after Fiacc's Hymn, which he reckons first, he places as 
second the "Collectanea of Tirechan" ; and as third, one which contained only the tiiuh'of the capita 
of a Ziyi of Patrick written by Maccuthenus for Aedh, Bishop of Sletty. These two documents he of 
course found in our ms. (the former ff, 9 et sgg., the latter f. 20 r°), which, as above shown (p. cvii), 
was known and used by him as " Vitus Codex Eccksiae Armachanae" as early as 1632. But of the 
narrative contained in the leaves before f. 9, he says nothing, and seems to be unaware that it belongs 
to the Life whose tituli he has read in f. 20 r". Yet in B. E. A. he frequently cites " Maccuthenus " 
among the authorities for facts which are contained in that narrative. But on examination of these 
citations, it proves that in nearly every case where Ussher refers to " Maccuthenus," the reference can 
be traced to the tituli. The instances are as follows : — (a) St. Patrick's second captivity (Ussher, vi., 
P- 390); titulus 3 [cited verbally ; — this is the place referred to above, p. cxx]. — {b) His ordination 
"ah Amatho rege " (p. 397) ; tit. 9. — {c) The faith of Eire, son of Dego (p. 410) ; tit. 17. — {d) The faith 
of Dubhthach Maccu Lugir (p. 41 1) ; tit. 19. — («) The conversion of MacCuill (p. 180) ; tit. 23. One 
instance only remains to be considered : — (/) The mission of Patrick by Pope Celestine, for which 
Ussher (p. 370) refers (among others) to " Maccuthenus." Now, no mention of the name of Celestine, 
or of any other Pope, occurs in the tituli; and Ussher's reference must apparently be to f. zr' a 
(Muirchu i., c. 8), as being the only place where Muirchu in either of his Books names that Pontiff 
(though it is Palladius, not Patrick, whom he records to have been sent by him).' This being so, it 
follows that Ussher used at least one of the earlier leaves of our MS. (in fact, the earliest now extant), 
and recognized it as belonging to the Life of which f. 20 gives the tituli. — Moreover, in some 
even of the above instances where Ussher's references are satisfied by the tituli, he seems to show a 
knowledge extending beyond them, derived from the capita contained in ff. 2-7. Thus, in instance {d), 
though tit. 19 gave him the name of Dubhthach Maccu Lugir,' it could not be from it that he learned 
that this man was known to " Maccuthenus " as the preceptor of Fiacc ; but he must have turned back 
to compare with it f. 4 v° {c. 19), where that fact is stated. A like remark applies to {e). There, tit. 23 
names MacCuill as a convert merely ; and therefore when Ussher says that " Maccuthenus " styles 
him Bishop of Man, he shows that he has read ff. 5, 6 {c. 23), in which MacCuill's history is given, 
ending with, "Hie est MacCuill diMane episcopus." 

It appears therefore that Ussher, though he speaks (p. 375) only of the tituli of Muirchu's Life, 
as if the Z?/* itself was unknown to him, must afterwards have satisfied himself that the text which 
occupies the earlier folios of the ms. is proved, by its correspondence with the tituli, to be the history 
to which those tituli belong. And though Ussher has nowhere expressly noted his discovery of this 
fact,' he has, apparently on the strength of it, inserted these references to Muirchu's text into his work 
before completing and issuing it. Hence it follows that Ussher read ff. 2, 4, 5, and 6 of our ms 
(Muirchu I., cc. 8, 19, and 23). And here the remark may fairly be made, that if f. i had been before 
him, he would probably have cited it likewise, containing, as it does, much that is germane to his 

We may assume accordingly with confidence that the leaf which, by operation 
of the causes above indicated, had become detached, was lost before the volume 
was in Ussher's keeping — that is, before 1632 (the date of publication of his 
Religion Professed by the Ancient Irish, the work in which his earliest citations from 
it occur) ; — nearly fifty years before the last hereditary Keeper parted with it (in 

' Ussher's error here is notable, as being adverse to his theological prepossessions. It is thus evidence 
of the unbiassed mind with which he approached the documents relating to the Saint. 

' In the text, c. 19, we read Lugil, for Lugir of the titulus. 

' So Petrie («/ su;pr.); but his remark refers to the " extract" which he wrongly supposed to belong to 
the contents of f. i. 

* If, as is likely, f. i prefixed the name of Muirchu in the superscription of the Life, Ussher could not 
have failed to perceive that the tituli of f. 20 belonged to it. 

That Ussher used ff. 9 et sgg. (especially f. 20, which gives the tituli of Muirchu I.) is certain; for 
these leaves (ff. 9-15) contain Tirechan and the other documents which he cites (both in^.^.^. and in 
his earlier work, The Religion Professed by the Ancient Irish). But having in his hands ff. 9, 10, he must 
have also had ff. 4, 3 (their conjugates) ; — for the diplomata ff. 4, 9 ; 3, 10, have never been severed, but 
are to the present day continuous and entire. 


1680), as above related in Chap. viii. Farther back than this we have no ground 
to go on, in investigating the date and circumstances of its mutilation. 

In Chapters 11.— vii. the contents of ff. 2—24, and their order and arrangement, 
have been sufficiently examined. What remains to be said of this Division is 
partly of a negative character. 

(i) Elaborately wrought initial letters, such as mark the opening of nearly 
every distinct document in the two remaining Divisions, do not appear in this — 
though an initial of distinctive size and form (in each instance a p) introduces 
three of the minor sub-divisions'); with perhaps an exception in the case of the 
misplaced Preface and Table of Muirchu i. (f 20 r")^ where the initial q shows 
something of decorative design.' Some such ornament may have formed part of 
the heading of Muirchu i. on the missing f. i. The amount of lost matter is not 
too large to leave room for a short superscription so headed. 

(ii) It is to be noted that, of the three quires which compose this Division, 
none is (as regards the matter it now comprises) self-contained : the ending 
neither of the first quire nor of the second coincides with the ending of a docu- 
ment. The first of these quires comprehends all of Muirchu and of Tirechan i., 
with the early part of Tirechan 11. ; the second, the rest of Tirechan, with the 
supplementary Collectanea, and other miscellaneous matter, to the end of the first 
page of the Liber Angeli (f. 20 &°) ; the third, the rest of that document, with the 
Confessio. No one of the three, therefore, nor any two of them as they now stand, 
can ever have been a separate booklet ; though the three together may have 
existed and been in readers' hands apart from the rest of the ms. in which they 
are now included, — but with which (as regards the rest of its contents) they have 
no necessary connexion. 

It will, however, be shown below (pp. cxxxi et sgq.) that the first and second quires were originally 
intended to exhibit a complete collection of Patrician records, ending on f. 18?'° 3 (being the sixth 
leaf of the second quire) ; and that by an afterthought the scribe added the Preface and Table of 
Muirchu i. on the recto of its last leaf (f. 20) ; then proceeded with the Liber Angeli on the verso of 
that leaf; and continued it to completion on the new quire (or properly semi-quire), which is now the 
third and last of the Division (if. 21-24), '^i which he found room also for so much as he has given us 
of the Confessio. 

(iii) In this Division there are to be found no traces of obliterated subscrip- 
tions, such as occur frequently in the other two. But the scribe, though he has 
nowhere signed this part of the volume with his name, gives sufficient proof by 
his handwriting that he is the Ferdomnach who elsewhere asks the prayers of his 

' Sea 9 r' a, 18 r' a, 20 v a. 

^ See for these p. xvii, supr., {V) and {c), where the fact is noted that the text of Muirchu I., as i 
we have it in our MS., does not fully correspond with the Table of f. 20 r" — the former lacking three 
ca;pita, of which the Utuli appear in the latter. Hence it follows that this supplementary fragment was 
derived by our scribe from an exemplar different from that from which he had copied the text. (See for 
these ca^iia, p. xxxiv.) 

' But compare it with the similar initial of St. Luke, f, 70 r" a. 


readers. The contractions employed are much the same throughout ; but in this 
they are used in a few cases with less consistency than in the other Divisions. 

Thus, non is sometimes so contracted as to be indistinguishable from nam (as in 1. s of f. 21 r°a), 
^ed from secundum (1. 17 off. 8 0° a) ; and the symbol employed for per diifers now and then from the 
ordinary one. Also, here and there, letters stand in the margin of which no certain explanation has 
been offered. Thus we find n (usually = nam) on inner margin of f. 2 r° a,' and elsewhere ; "1" on 
•iv° a (outer marg.), and elsewhere ; "g" (ei.) ; "d" on 3 r" a (upper marg.). 

B. The Second, or Biblical, Division follows the first immediately, occupying 
fF. 25-191, inclusive. These leaves are, for the most part, arranged in nineteen 
<^uires ;^ but together with these are a few which stand apart from the quire- 
arrangement. Seven such leaves (25—31), made up of three diplomata with a 
single leaf attached to the third, stand first. In these leaves (as in many mss. of 
the Latin Bible) are given, as prefatory to the Gospels in common, the follow- 
ing: — (i) The Epistle of St. Jerome to Pope Damasus (f. 25 r°), followed by the 
Eusebian Tables (ff. 26-29 r" a) ; — (2) The '■'■Breves Causae'''' for the four Gospels 
severally (ff. 29 r" (5— 31 v" b)} 

These, however, do not quite fill the seven leaves. Towards the end of the 
last page (f. 3 1 z/") begins the matter prefatory to St. Matthew specially. The 
usual " Interpretatio Ebreorum Nominum'''' for that Gospel fills the end of col. b, 
and is continued on f. 32 (the first leaf of quire i, the first regular quire of this 
Division), occupying the first column of its recto. The second column of the same 
page contains the " Argumentum Mathei.'''^ The verso of this leaf exhibits the 
first and largest of the artistic embellishments of the ms., — a full-page drawing 
in rectangular form, divided into four rectangles, each containing one of the 
usual Evangelistic symbols. On the next page (f. 33 r" a) begins the text of 
the Gospel (which is included within quires i— iii). The opening word. Liber 
{St. Matth. i. i), of this page is the first example in our ms. of the full deco- 
rative treatment of the initial word, syllable, or letter, which thereafter marks 
the beginning of each Book of the Division. A second example of the same 
appears on the next page, at the place where (after the Genealogy) the direct 
narrative of the Gospel begins (with " xpt,'" i. 18). These two embellishments 
and the Evangelistic symbols of the page before, and those prefixed to the other 
Gospels, are only pen-and-ink drawings, not heightened by colour as are the 
initial ornaments of the remaining Books, and of the Life of St. Martin. 

The Gospels occupy in all seventy-four leaves (32-105), disposed into ten 
quires. These are signed Q. i, and so on to Q. x (see ff. 78, 88, 102, 118, 130, 

' Here perhaps = nomen. ^ See p. xiv, su;pr. (where for " eighteen" read " nineteen" in line 20). 

= In our MS., the numbers of the Euseb.-Ammon. Sections are not inserted on the margin of the Gospel 
text, nor is it divided into Capita to correspond with the Breves Causae. See for these, and for the 
Argumenta, Bishop Wordsworth's Nouum Testamentum sec. £d. S. Hieron., pp. 15, 171, 269, 485. On 
the 68th heading of St. Luke (p. 61 b), our scribe notes in the margin that there is an error, and adds, 
•' uide librum certu?n." 

* This Argument, and those prefixed to the other Gospels, are the Praefationes of Cod. Amiat. (see 
Tischendorf's edition of the N. T. as exhibited by that MS. ( 1850) ; pp. 10, 59, 90, 144 ; see also Wordsworth, 
tit su^r., for the other MSS. which give them). 


146, 174, 192, 204).' Of these, Q(^. i, ii, iv, vi, and vii are of eight folios each ; 
QQ. V, viii, and x, of six ; while Q. iii has but seven folios, and Q. ix but nine.* 
They have been so arranged, longer and shorter quires, that each Gospel could 
be used separately, — St. Matthew' and St. Luke each occupying three quires; 
St. Mark and St. John, two. In every case, however, the introductory matter 
begins on the last leaf preceding each of these quires, thus forming connecting 
links between the several parts of the Division. 

In the opening between ff. 34 v" and 35 r" appears the first page-heading, in 
the form K^TA. Mi^TTHYC \sic\. Afterwards, we usually find Y^KTh. Mi^TTHYM 
(once MivTT6YM), twice Ki^Tiv matteum. Usually one of the two words is on 
each page, but sometimes both are on one or other. Once (36 if, 37 r"') we have 
HVi.Nr€AIWN \sic] on left-hand page, with K^Ti.Mi.TT€YM \_sic\ on right. 
Similar, but less varied, headings appear in the remaining Gospels. In the 
Second, the scribe, after writing YKXh, Mi^PKYM thrice, has lapsed into 
Ki^Ti^ marCUm for the rest. In the Third, the last heading alone is Ki^Tii 
AYKA.NYM ; all the rest read lucanum, preceded by seCUndum in the first 
heading, by Ki^T\ in the others. In the Fourth, KA^Ti^ and secUndum are 
written indiscriminately; but lohannem always follows, and no attempt is 
made to express the name in Greek letters. Our scribe first introduces this 
clumsy and purposeless fashion into St. Matthew, so early as the second page 
(33 v° b\ where for ecce he has unmeaningly written Hcce, Hgo {ego), and Hum 
{eum), and many such minor instances, follow ; after which (not to mention the 
defensible nPO<l>HT^C, and i^MHN, of 35 r") he not only proceeds to write 
iiMBYA^NC, HCTU)T€, and the like, but has exhibited the Lord's Prayer at 
full length (36 r" a) in the same unbecoming disguise ; — in which he has also 
given us (53 z*" «, 11. 7-1 1) the colophon of this Gospel, and (at foot of same 
column) the subscription now effaced (see above, pp. xv, cxiv), — yet not so 
completely as to leave no traces of the Greek characters, or to baffle the acute 
investigator who succeeded in discovering its purport. But the Collect for 
St. Matthew's Day, which intervenes, is in the ordinary script. The Gospel text 
ends, and these paragraphs follow, on col. a of the verso of the penultimate leaf 
(f. 53) of Q. iii, col. b being left blank. 

This misuse of the Greek characters (uncials, mostly of uncouth shape)* is affected by our scribe 
all through the Gospels, but most largely in St. Matthew ; in the other three more rarely : in the rest 
of this Second Division, very rarely indeed ; while in the Third Division he returns to it only for his 

' The words "caternio quartus" precede the signature "Q. iv"; " caternio" precedes "Q. x." 

2 Q. iii is a quaternio from which the seventh leaf (after f. 53) has been neatly removed ; Q. ix, a 
quinio, in which the eighth has been similarly dealt with. In neither case has any portion of text been lost. 
Either the lacking leaves were removed before being written on (possibly because of flaws in the vellum) ; 
or were cancelled after they were written, because of some error detected by the scribe before going on to 
the next leaf. 

' The second of the quires occupied by St. Matthew is the one which (as above noted, p. xiii) has lost 
four leaves, being the midmost of its four di^lomata (ff. 42-45). 

* Compare, however, those of the (Greek) Lord's Prayer, given in facsimile in Dr. Reeves's Adamnan, 
Plate 3. See also the facsimile of f. 86 of Cod. Boernerianus, in Matthaei's edition. 


first subscription (f. 222 v' cC). In the First Division, no example of it occurs, though he employs a 
few single Greek letters here and there — the marginal 2, the K which the Irish alphabet does not 
furnish, and '^ where required (as 19 r' a, 1. 33 ; 21 v° h, 1. 31). Of the Greek alphabet, two letters, 
©, Z, nowhere appear in his work. For X, he writes Kh (ff. 65 v' a, marg. ; 222 v" a, 1. iz)' : and on 
the other hand, where X appears it is ignorantly misused for E, as in EXFIAIKIT (= explicit), f. 53 v°a, 1. 6 : 
see Plate II. The letters which constitute the frequent contraction xpi, are not Greek in form. — 
The knowledge of Greek implied by this practice, on the part Of our scribe, as of other Irish scribes 
who have so dealt with the Greek alphabet, can hardly be regarded as extending beyond the 
alphabet. It includes no Greek word except Ki^T^* (unless we reckon ikMHN), and it is combined 
with ignorance of the quantity of vowels (f.^. HYM and €YM indiscriminately represent eum). No 
such scribe could be capable of profitably consulting a Greek manuscript. 

St. Mark's Gospel begins with Q. iv (on f. 55 r°), introduced by the device 
which represents its first word, '■'■ Initium." The prefatory matter fills the recto of 
the last leaf (54) of Q. iii ; and on the verso is a full-page drawing of the Lion. 
The text occupies Q,Q. iv and v (ff. 55-68). On the outer margin of f. 65 v", 
over against Mc. xiii. 20, occurs the word K€AAAKf- (= KeWax), in which Dr. Graves 
{Proc. R.I. A,, t. in., pp. 356 et sqq.) discerned an application of the passage 
{vv. 14-19) preceding that verse to the slaughter of the monks of Hy, in a raid of 
the Norsemen in 806—7,' while Cellach (802—815) was Abbot. In this coincidence 
of date with that arrived at by him on other grounds (see p. cxiv, supr.), he found 
a confirmation of his previous results. — A very short subscription (probably in the 
same terms as that which is faintly legible at foot of f. 215*-° a) has been 
effectually erased at the end of this Gospel (68 v" b) ; and a similar one at the 
end of St. Luke (90 r". b). 

Of St. Luke's Gospel, the Argument begins in the last column of Q. v 
(f. 68 &" <5); and the rest of it, with Interpretatio, and (on the verso') the figure of 
the Calf, fill the first leaf (f. 69) of Q. vi. Then follows the text beginning 
(f. 70) with the device which embodies its opening words (" g?<tf«?a;« quidem"), 
and ending on f. 90 r", the penultimate page of Q. viii. 

Of St. John's Gospel, the prefatory matter fills the verso of the leaf (f. 90) on 
which St. Luke ends. Signs of a large erasure appear in this page, at foot of 
column b. For the Eagle, a full page is not reserved^ but the figure is skilfully 
inserted at foot of the first page of text (9 1 r"), being the recto of first leaf of 
Quire ix. On this page the text begins : the first three letters of its opening, 
"/« principio" being combined into an ingenious monogram. This Gospel ends 
on the recto of the penultimate leaf (104) of Quire x, the second of its two quires. 
Its closing verses occupy the central lozenge-shaped space of that page. The 
left-hand, upper, and right-hand margins are filled by a series of extracts from 

' Note that in these places, and in the Lord's Prayer (f. 36 r' a, 1. 13), the Greek aspirate is represented 
by V (see above) ; as also (according to Dr. Graves) in the obliterated subscription off. 53 V a, which he has 
(in part conjecturally) restored (see p. cxvi, su^r.). So too by Maelsuthain in his note, f. 16 v b (see p. ciii). 

* The K^T^ MikTTHYC of ff. 34 V 35 r° suggests a doubt whether our scribe knew what K\Ti^ 
meant. The use of caia (= secundum) is frequent in early Latin MSS. of the Gospels, as in Cod. Bobbiensis {k) ; 
and. is found in. early Latin Fathers, — e.g., Cyprian, Testimonia, passim. 

' For this fact he refers to Ware, De Hibernia et Aniiqq., p. 102 ; also to Ann. Jms/., s. a. 806 


the Moralia (Commentary on Job) of Gregory the Great, which in no way bear on 
the text which they enclose. 

The passages selected from the Moralia are:— (i) From lib. VI., xxxvii. 56 (on Job v. 26), 
occupying the left-hand column ;— (2) from V., vi. 9 (on Job iii. 20), filling the small triangular 
top-space, and continued on the right-hand margin ;— (3) from V., iii. 4 (on Gal. vi. 14), following on 
same margin, at 1. 10 ;— (4) from IV., xxxvii, 52 (on the Lord's three miracles of raising the dead), 
at 1. 34 ;— (s) from same (on Luke ix. 60), at 1. 42. The introduction here of these extracts, taken in 
conjunction with the Note relating to Gregory at foot of f. 19 r" 3 (see p. Ixxv, supr.), indicates, if 
not a familiar knowledge of his life and works, at least a due sense of his celebrity. 

On the verso of this leaf there is a brief reckoning of the number of "verses" 
in the Gospels, severally and collectively (but the total arrived at is incorrect).' 
The last leaf of the quire was left blank by the scribe ; but on its verso, the last 
hereditary Keeper, Florence Wyre or Mac Moyre, has entered his signature, with 
the date, "June 29th, 1662" (see p. cviii, supr.). 

Elsewhere, all through the ms., the text is in double columns, with the excep- 
tions (beside that, already noted, of the latter part of f. 17 r") of the Argument on 
T08 v°, and the lines at top of 171 r" (which see). Here and there, when lists of 
names or the like occur (as 9 v" b, 33 r" a, etc. ; 130 r" b, etc.), or passages which 
lend themselves to stichographic arrangement (as 2 v" a, 12 r" a and (5, 38 r" b, 
39 r" a, 73 r" a, etc.), a column is parted vertically into sub-columns. 

In this Gospel (the Fourth), Dr. Reeves has pointed out {Memoir of 1861, 
p. 3), "the vellum is finer and the writing more delicate than in the preceding 
ones," this being a "tribute of honour to the loved disciple, Eoin na Bruinne, 
that is, 'John of the Bosom,' as the Irish anciently designated him." It is to 
be added that, on the whole, the ten quires of this Division which contain the 
Gospels are written with more care and regularity, and ampler allowance of space 
for the columns, and less severity in use of contractions, than the rest of the Ms.° 
Comparing a page of the First or Second Gospel with one in the Pauline Epistles, 
one perceives how much more fully the text as printed occupies the width of the 
latter. In the Third Gospel, and still more in the Fourth, this difference fails to 
appear on the face of the printed page because the minute fineness of the pen- 
manship (which typography cannot reproduce), in the Fourth especially, admits a 
greater quantity of matter without increasing the length of the lines. 

Here and there, in the Gospels, a cross on the margin points to some supreme event — as the 
Passion (f. 52 v'b), the Resurrection (53 r° a). A marginal numeration in a few places notes the 
threefold recurrence of some fact (as on 34 v° a, 82 v'b, 86 v" a, 103 v'b). Of a few marginalia the 
explanation does not appear;' but most of them are corrections of wrongly written words, syllables, 
or letters, — or supply omissions, or suggest alternatives. In one instance, marks on the margin of 
two passages, corresponding with like marks in a third place, suggest the application of two parables 

iThe figures given are :— Matthew, 2700; Mark, 1600; Luke, 2900; John, 2300. The sura of these is 
9500 — not (as the note makes it) 9400. Moreover, for 1600 (MDC) we should probably read 1700 (mdcc), 
which is the number assigned to Mark by most Latin authorities (see for them Wordsworth, uisupr., p. 736). 

2 In one place (St. Matth. xxv. 24) a serious omission occurs, which the scribe has detected while in 
the act of writing, but has failed to supply. He has begun the column (49 v b) with, in ver. 25 {"et iimens"), 
leaving out " ubi non sparststi" (end of 24). To set this right, he has partly expunged lines i and 2, but 
has neglected to restore the lacking words. ' As, e.g., "comt" (84 r' a) ; {qu. = comiter P). 

Plate III. 


iSfrfituV C'-'nuffiiiinr - ni.niiUvJ.'rH 

lyfif <ri'«'hn i^jHTt: ^'(Vifwrn ri;*' W Ir 
.*ftl I r AUfLim iWi ^^ ^c* >v<^p»'i^4" 

\r I (7i<^iiK"«mf irtlipfTiiifrrtiiTn .Ir 

fitif ftf ?f tiu^ moTKrciitntlli? Inirn 

j-rprtiiitn (fw^m<«flf7'rn">>«"^ 
tttmr iTijirorMtimiirT)C(tnninwMtv 

pin- ^ rwm u<f'-j j-<n«n3«m t'^fli " '«"i 
iHJicvwr Attn iy^s'i^iH.V'fS flctij'n 

I » 

' v.-i,*" iriNn^irl""! ;m'f iM-iwrtirh-ii- 
iic;'!mntf!iiii')- ,>>■■); rmm.v ifot-),- imi,\' 
fi t'lr urn ma.Viirii (ir\<<^y wh' " li" 

fi;.' mK ft.u tirji w-i'"!!' iimiinhftnim , 
>r,< |:v((irii|-.|iii.>': fiitnt'ii'imili ."•)<■ 

''if )irv"""-^*ft'i"r i'"iimc )Uit^ 

pmi I'mrtii'tihcf I'.i>iriH'i«l liirttV 
!'.ihii1'!m)- Uunc n)ri£/.^)t;iimvMr 


>i7Utttf Aim-'iimfrKinr .iJiiw?.^?!'!^ 
Imi?* iliif' Hi>''ni.'*.'«'ni!tti ^.tl-.DK' 
(^ |Mlm.i|-]rt"nr IfiMtipvlariif |ifHif 
"J^ '^j" (Vfr.>:|.'>mv ii.'I'ii-nim nnvc 
m')V>lt'r+ Itifi't'iillrt'i I'-'HIT'"" '"'I'"' 

)«^»vm -7 f?ivtf! iiffAnimrtiTn 
•*•''" of ncfrlicMii' tiin)<'tti.''iff«*)r<T|' 

FOL, 102 R". 

Plate IV. 


pun |i*»mfti1twi)U*«i:M'*'^"f-?)r 
wvliowintltl mvjiij .\ti rtnfii>y,viti i pV" 

plfft»fjj}<1*t'ffirtiff\Vnfi'n^*f^ ' 

Ifi^iltVtn *flllli><^ ^icmwilrj t<»^J|| ;|f ' 

wU(iiiCi;l'')iUi^i t!^^ wp)*>mf Btr 
tn<<' yM)5 C.v «»<>«► ati.'.iMitt^'^' 

tflinppWftun^piy Jtl-mr ifmjr 

FOL. 137 R". 


(49 r°b, v'a and b). In two parallel places (St. Matth. xxvii. 50 : St. Mark xv. 37 ; 52 v°, 68 r°) the 
remarkable note, "Hie auciores canunt Pater Noster" is attached to the narrative of our Lord's death. 
It is remarkable that St. Luke's is the only one of the Gospels which has on its margin Irish glosses 
(as 78 r° a, 79 v°), such as are very frequent on that of the Acts. One Irish word, however (not a gloss), 
irogdn (= wretch), is written against the name of Judas Iscariot (38 r'b), where it occurs in St. Matth. 
(x. 4). For the marginal note on f. 65, see above, p. cxxv. 

The Book of the Acts does not immediately follow the Gospels, but is by a 
(nearly) singular arrangement placed last of all — the order^ thus being : — Gospels ; 
Pauline Epistles ; Catholic Epistles ; Apocalypse ; Acts : — in all, nine quires 
(ff. 109-19 1 ). Of these, the first five are occupied by the Pauline Epistles 
(ff. 109-150); but between them and the Gospel-quires there are inserted three 
leaves of prefatory matter. 

These are as follows : — (i) The "Prologue of Hilary to the Apostle" (106 r", which really relates 
only to the Epistle to the Romans); (2) The "Prologue of Pelagius to all the Epistles" (106 v°, 
107 r°a); (3) The "Prologue of Pelagius to the Romans" (107 r° and v°b); (4) A second Prologue 
(not headed) to all the Epistles (107 v'b, 108 r°a); (5) On f. 108 v° appears a brief "Argument of 
Pelagius to Romans." Of these, more is to be said in next Chapter. The second and third and 
fifth are given ia Cod. Amiat. (see pp. 233-236, 240, of Tischendorf's edition), but without attribution 
to any author. To (5) are attached explanatory notes, — one of them containing Irish words. 

These five Pauline quires, and (for the most part) all that follow (except the 
last two of Division in.), contrast markedly with those that contain the Gospels, — 
St. John's especially, — as regards the quality of their vellum, which is thick and 
rigid ; and further as regards the handwriting, which has less of delicacy and grace, 
but is heavier, and somewhat stiff; so as, at first sight, to suggest the surmise that 
we have here the work of a different scribe. On further examination, however, it 
appears that the latter characteristic is mainly a result of the former, and that it 
is not the penman but the material under his hand that is changed. Moreover, 
he has given something of a mechanical aspect to his work by ruling his pages, 
not merely with main lines up and down to limit the height and width of his 
columns, but with cross-lines throughout, so as to determine the number of lines 
for each column (usually from thirty-one to thirty-five).^ "The writing hangs 
from, instead of resting on, the line" (as Dr. Reeves has pointed out*) in these 
ruled pages, — that is, touches it from below, not from above. The use of these 
ruled lines suggests the conjecture (see p. cxxxii, infr.) that this Pauline sub- 
division may have been written earlier than the parts of the ms. in which none 
such appear, before the scribe had attained such mastery of his art as to dispense 
with their guidance, and to work with the freedom and lightness of hand shown in 
the pages which, though they now stand before it, may have been written after it. 
The type of text to which the Gospels belong is, as will appear in next Chapter, 

' This order is in the main (but with differences of detail) that of the ancient list in Cod. Claroraontanus 
("D of Paul"), for which see p. 469 of Tischendorf's edition (1852). Berger [Hist, de la Vulgate) refers 
(p. 340) to a very few MSS. as exhibiting the same or similar arrangement. 

* The points that determine these cross-lines are struck into the vellum with a sharp instrument, and 
the lines are ruled with the same. See Plate iv., which shows these points. ^Adamnan, p. xx, note ^ 



so far distinct from that of these Epistles, as to raise a presumption that the 
exemplar whence the scribe copied the latter was independent of that which he 
used for the former ; and some time may have intervened between the execu- 
tion of these two sub-divisions. The fact, already noted, that contractions 
abound so much more in the Epistles than in the Gospels, points the same way. 
It may well be that the scribe at first contemplated only a collection of the 
Apostolic writings (Epistles and Apocalypse), to which, when finished, he after- 
wards prefixed the Gospels, and appended the Acts, so as to make a complete 
New Testament. The quires which contain the Pauline Epistles are not merely, 
as has been said above, detachable as a separate booklet ; but that they have 
actually been in use as such, the worn and rubbed aspect of their first page 
(109 r°) too plainly indicates. 

The Epistles stand in their usual order, as in the Latin Vulgate (and in 
English Bibles), except that i and 2 Thessalonians are placed before Colossians ; 
which displacement also occurs in the "Prologue of Pelagius" (107 r" a), but not 
in the list of 108 r"} To Colossians is subjoined the pseudo-Epistle to the 
Laodiceans, occupying 139 r" (5. Last, after the Pastoral Epistles, follows that 
to the Hebrews, ending on 149 v" \ — 150 being left blank. Each Epistle is 
introduced by a brief Argument, — in most cases ascribed (as that to Romans, 
already mentioned) to Pelagius, the exceptions being i and 2 Corinthians, 
2 Timothy, and Hebrews. All these are given, but with variations (mostly in 
the way of abridgment), in Cod. Amiatinus. Before Galatians (128 r"), an 
additional and longer Argument from Jerome^ precedes that of Pelagius ; and 
the so-called " Laodiceans" is introduced by a warning that Jerome rejects it. 

Throughout this Division the ornamental initial letters are coloured with 
simple pigments (metallic). The manifold forms given to the recurring P^aulus] 
are remarkable for variety and ingenuity — see especially that prefixed to 
2 Thessalonians (1362'° b') — if not always for elegance. But that which introduces 
Romans, though it has shared the lamentable defacement of f 109 r" in which it 
stands, is of admirable design, and a marvel of minute delicacy of execution.' 

In the sixth Quire of this Division (ff. 151-160), which contains the seven 
Catholic Epistles in their usual order, some of the ornaments are happily devised 
(note especially the monograms with which St. James and St. Jude begin).* 
To these Epistles no Prologues or Arguments are prefixed ; but they are divided 
throughout into sections by marginal numbering, — the same as in Cod. Amiatinus. 
In St. James, however, most of the earlier numeral letters have been omitted or 
effaced. St. Jude ends on i. 159 v\ the last leaf of the quire being left blank. 

' Note that in the Claromontane list a similar but greater displacement occurs,— Colossians being post- 
poned to I and 2 Timothy and Titus, so as to be immediately followed by Philemon. 

' It is part of the Prcefatio to his Comm. on Galatians {O^era, t. iv., pp. 222, 223). 

' It has been found possible to restore the beautiful P completely in our phototype, except the left-hand 
upper part of the design, which has utterly disappeared. 

< Those which belong to 2 St. Peter and 2 St. John are also notable ; but they have not been so 
successfully reproduced in this edition. 


The Apocalypse fills the next quire (ff. 1 61-170), and overruns to a supple- 
mental leaf (171), now attached by glue to the quire following. This Book is 
preceded by its tiiuli, fourteen in number, on the verso of the last leaf (160) of the 
preceding quire; — curiously arranged in a roughly lozenge-shaped table, of which 
the first letter (A) is of quaint design ; the text, however, has no corresponding 
divisions. But the most elaborate and remarkable of the embellishments of our 
MS. stands at the head of the next page (161 r°), the word Apocalipsis, running 
across, — in large characters of peculiar form. This initial A, which is of great 
size, its length exceeding half the height of the page, is of singularly graceful form, 
and perfectly carried out in its wonderfully minute details. The last four lines of 
the text are on 1 7 1 r", extending across the width of the page. There appears to 
have been a line of subscription subjoined, now irrecoverably erased. The rest of 
the page is taken up by a strange design, — a rectangular diagram representing the 
city that "lieth foursquare," the "Jerusalem" of Rev. xxi. 10-16, with its twelve 
gates, each bearing the name of its precious stone, its tribe, and its Apostle. 

The verso of this connecting leaf (171) is occupied with matter relating to the opening chapters of 
the Acts, which Book follows on f. 172. In fact, col. a of 171 v° gives the heads of a formal homily 
on the Pentecostal promise conveyed in Acts i. 8 {" Acctpietis uirtutem superuenientis Spiritus Sancti"), 
as illustrated by Ps. xlv [xlvi], i, 4 {" Deus noster refugium" . . . "Fluminis impetus"), combined 
with Esaias vii. 8, 9 ; viii. 7 ; Ixvi. 12-14; ^nd St. John vii. 38, 39. And col. b continues the subject 
by a comparison of the ceremonies and festivals of the Gentiles and Jews with those of the Church ; 
passing into a parallelism between Law and Gospel, arranged in two sub-columns ; and closing with 
examples in which the number seven appears in the Old Testament, illustrative of the seven weeks 
of Pentecost. — Near the end of the former column, and all through the latter, many Irish words and 
sentences appear. 

The two remaining quires (ff. 17 2-1 91) of this Division contain the Book of 
the Acts, which ends on the redo of the last leaf, leaving a blank page (191 v"), 
on which, as being the last of the division, no matter introductory to the following 
Books is entered. In these quires the vellum is much the same in quality as in 
the Epistles and the Apocalypse ; and the handwriting shows no marked change 
in character, though inferior in finish. No Argument is prefixed.^ The ornamental 
initial (P) is very nearly alike to that of i Thessalonians (f. 135 r" a). But even 
to the eye the text is distinguished from that of every other part of the ms., by 
the much greater number, length, and variety of notes attached. Some of 
these are marginal, some interlined ; — some in Latin, some in Irish, or mixed 
with Irish (one especially, in Acts xx., — f. 185 v", which is of considerable 
length); some offer interpretation or explanation; some are geographical notes ; 
a few are textual corrections or alternative readings. The presence of these, 
taken together with the singular postponement of this Book to all the rest, 
suggests the inference (already hinted) that the exemplar whence the scribe 
derived it must have come into his hands, not with that (or those) which he 

' A sectional division of the text is indicated by marginal numerals on the first page (172 r»), but it 
continues no farther. 


used for the other Books, but from a different source and at a later time. It will 
be shown, in our concluding Chapter, that the character of its text is sufficiently 
distinct fully to confirm this suggestion. — At the end of the last column, a note 
of eight or more lines has been effectually erased, past recovery or conjectural 

C. The Life of St. Martin of Tours {pb. circ. 397), once the most popular of 
religious biographies, with the Dialogues and Epistles which continue it, by 
Severus Sulpicius, his disciple, forms the Third and final Division, consisting of 
three quires, with a single leaf attached to the last (ff. 192-222). Dialogue i. 
(in most divisions divided into i. and 11.) is reckoned (f. 201 v" a) as Second Book 
of the Life, and Dialogue 11. (otherwise in.) as Third (215 r" b). Of the author's 
three extant Epistles, two only are given ; that "ad Eusebium,'' but without his 
name (22 v" a), and that "ad Aurelium" (221 v" a). 

The Life is divided into twenty-six sections, marked by marginal figures ; but this division has 
no relation to the twenty-seven sections of the printed editions. It has no running titles ; but the 
word "liber" stands at the top of its last page (zoi r°). Book 11. {Dialogue i. [and ii.j is headed 
" Postumiani de uirtutibus Monachorum" and " Secundus" (sometimes followed by "Liber'") appears 
frequently as running title. Book iii. {Dialogue 11. [or iii.]) is headed " Incipit tertius Galli." In 
Book II. no sectional numbers appear in the earlier part, which is usually distinguished as Dialogue i. ; 
but at the point (f. 210 r° a, 1. 5) where, in many editions, Dialogue 11. begins {" Quo primum tempore"), 
the number "xxvii" is placed, and the numeration proceeds to " xxxvii " (213 r° a, 1. 8). No doubt 
it was meant that Book iii. should be numbered continuously with 11., for "xlii" appears early in it 
(215 »° b, 1. 21), and the figures go on to "luiii" (219 r° b). As in the preceding parts of the ms., 
many letters are set here and there in the margin of which no explanation is forthcoming. 

In three places marginalia are attached to t\ie Life {igi v° b, 193 r" b, ib. v", 
upper margin), written in the minute script of 19 r" (see above, p. Ixxii), being 
topographical notes on the words " Ticinis,^'' " Ambiensium ciuitatis^'' " Pictauae 

Of the three quires which form this division, the former two are of the same 
stiff vellum as those which contain the Pauline Epistles ; but in the third, with its 
appended leaf (ff. 214-222), the finer material exhibited in St. John's Gospel 
reappears. The first leaf (192) shows four examples of ornament : on the recto, 
the first word ("Severus") of the prefixed Epistle, and that of the Prologue 
{"Plerigue"); — on the verso, the Igitur which opens the Address to the Reader, 
and the second "Igitur," where the narrative begins — being curiously elaborated 
and heightened with colour. Like examples are, the first word, " Cum" (f. 201 v"), 
of Book II., and that of Book iir., " Lucescit" (f. 215 r") ; but this last is 
uncoloured. The initial q (219 y" a) of a sub-section of Book iii. seems to have 
been intended to receive a like treatment, but it is unfinished. So, too, in the 
two places where the Epistles begin. The first (220 v" a) shows the bare outline 
of a large h, surmounted by the profile of a human face ; the second, a blank 
space, to receive the contraction "p" (= "post"). The latter of these instances 


proves that the scribe's usage was, to write his text first, leaving blanks for 
whatever design was to be filled in afterwards. And the former suggests that 
the designer was not the calligrapher ; for beside the unfinished h are set four 
Irish words, signifying, "Behold the eyes, the nose, the mouth" — in ridicule, 
seemingly, of the artist's attempt at portraiture. 

To Book 11. (215 r" a), and to Epistle i. (221 r" b), is appended the brief 
subscription, '^ Pro Ferdomnacho ores"; the former being decipherable, notwith- 
standing an attempt to expunge it : the latter, though erased, still showing enough 
to prove that it was in the same words. On the first column of the verso of the 
last leaf. Epistle 11. ends, followed (after the ordinary ''^explicit'") by a short 
collect, in which the intercession of St. Martin is pleaded, — written in the Greek 
■script above described. The rest of the column seems to have contained a colo- 
phon, now effaced, in this case with success. The remaining column is occupied 
•by a prayer and confession of faith, with which the volume closes. 

A question of some interest, and even importance, concerning the contents of our MS., is to be 
•considered, — whether the order in which they now stand is or is not the order in which they were 
written. Assuming that, as is admitted, the whole is the work of one scribe, is it possible to distin- 
guish between his earlier and his later work ? 

Confining ourselves in the first instance to an examination of its two most important Divisions, 
"the First (Patrician) and Second (New Testament), we are at once struck by the marked alteration of 
•aspect which distinguishes the pages of the text of the Gospels from those of the rest of the Second 
Division, and of the earlier and larger part of the First. The handwriting is the same, but the 
manner is changed. The ordinary calligraphy of the ms. is admirable ; regular and clear — even 
-elegant — in what may be called its normal type : in the Gospels we find it developed into higher 
perfection, — graceful as well as clear, and in its regularity showing an elastic freedom. It is thus 
an example of the scribe's matured manner ; and the surmise thus arises that this portion of the MS. 
is to be assigned to a later stage of his art : while the other portions, where the calligraphy is normal, 
belong to his earlier manner, and presumably to an earlier period of his work. 

It is of course possible that the finer workmanship thus bestowed by the scribe on the Gospels 
may be explained otherwise. The special reverence in which this part of the New Testament has 
always been held would cause him to transcribe them with more of religious care than the rest, and — 
as in point of fact he has done, especially for the Fourth Gospel, — to provide choice vellum to receive 
■their text, thus further enhancing the beauty of his handiwork. 

But when we turn back to the First Division of the ms., we are there met by a fact which con- 
flicts with this explanation, and throws us back on the former surmise. Of this Division, the greater 
part — nearly to the end of f. 18 v° — is of the normal type. Then there intervenes a small portion of 
matter (the brief notes treated of in Chapter vi., pp. Ixxii et sqg.), exceptional alike in contents and in 
script, which for the present we pass by, — occupying the end of iS zi° b and the whole of 1 9 r", and 
followed by the blank page 19 z<°. Finally, in the five remaining folios (20-24) of this Division, 
"the writing assumes the maturer manner which characterizes the text of the Gospels, and of the matter 
preliminary to them, occupying ff. 25-105. 

Now, the contents of fF. 20-24 are not such as to merit exceptional treatment as regards calli- 
graphy ; and the vellum on which they are written is not, in point of fact, exceptionally fine ; — on the 
contrary, f. 20, on which the change of the calligraphy to the more finished manner first shows itself, 
belongs to the quire (ff. 13-20 — being its last leaf)' whose former leaves are written in the normal 
-manner of the scribe; and the vellum of which this leaf and its conjugate, f. 13, are composed is of 
.more than ordinarily hard and intractable substance. But the matter contained in this f. 20 seems 

1 See above, pp. cxviii, cxix. 


of itself to supply an adequate explanation of the changed manner of writing. It is certain that this 
leaf cannot have been written in immediate sequence after the preceding leaves. For on its recto we 
have the Preface and Table of Capita of Muirchu I., which, as we know,' were not inserted in their 
proper place in f. i. It follows that f. 20 was written after an interval, — presumably not a short one, — 
and was added in consequence of the scribe having lighted on a copy of Muirchu i. exhibiting the 
Preface and Table, which evidently were lacking in his former exemplar. The inference is inevitable 
that in this case the changed calligraphy results from the lapse of time — that the later manner of 
ff. 20-24 is due to their later date. And it may be safely presumed that the writing of these five 
leaves, and that of the Gospels, both alike distinguished by delicacy and finish above what precedes 
and what follows, indicates that both alike belong to the later and more developed stage of the 
scribe's art. If this be so, the Gospels, as well as ff. 20-24, must have been written after ff. 1-18. In 
other words, it follows that the pages which contain Muirchu and Tirechan and the Additamenta, 
ending in 18 w° b, were transcribed before the year 807, in which the First Gospel was written." 

These earlier Patrician documents (ff. i-i8) are thus to be ranked with the latter Books of 
the New Testament (ff. io5 et sqq.), as written in the scribe's earlier and normal manner. But a 
closer examination of the text of these latter Books reveals a further fact, indicating two stages of 
this normal manner, and enabling us to distinguish one of them as prior to the other. The 
Pauline Epistles, which in our ms. are placed immediately after the Gospels, show distinct signs 
of such priority. As the Gospels plainly belong to a period of the scribe's work when his art 
was more highly developed than when he wrote ff. 1-18, so these Epistles as plainly are to be 
assigned to the period of his immaturity in skill ; and in them we discern a manner yet earlier 
than what we have in a general way described as the normal. Tokens of this are evident throughout 
the forty-two leaves (in all five quires) which they occupy, — in the more laboured, and almost stiff, 
character of the writing, which, though very good and regular, betrays a hand that has not yet 
gained an assured mastery of the pen, — and in a peculiarity which admits of no doubt, and is 
matter not of opinion but of visible fact, found in this sub-division, and in this alone, of the entire 
MS., — namely, that the pages are marked not only (as elsewhere) with vertical rulings to fix the width 
of the columns, but with horizontal rulings determined by punctures, to fix the number and secure the 
even placing of the lines of each column severally. This is so most conspicuously on the first 
leaf (f. 109) of the first quire of the Pauline text, and it is carried on nearly to the end of the fifth 
and last quire. It is only in the very last leaves that the scribe has dispensed with this guidance, on 
which in no other part of the MS. he has shown himself dependent. It appears, therefore, that in the 
course of writing these forty-two leaves his hand had gained the freedom which it displays in the 
leaves that follow, and in ff. 1-18, — though even in them he had not fully reached the practised and 
confident skill to which is due the superior excellence of the calligraphy of the Gospels, and of the 
last five leaves of the Patrician Division. 

Of the rest of this Division — the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse — it is only to be said that 
they exhibit the scribe's normal manner in what may be called his middle period, and may be safely 
set down as written after the Pauline Epistles, — not long after, for in them the manner is almost 
identical with that of the later Pauline leaves — contemporaneously with the earlier leaves of the First 

But when we come to the Book of the Acts, which in this MS. is abnormally placed last of the New 
Testament writings,' we find it distinguished in more than one respect from those which precede. Its 
pages abound with notes and glosses, marginal or interlined, such as elsewhere are very rare in the 
volume; its text (as will be fully shown in Chapter x.) is, if not of a different type, yet distinguished 
from that of any of the other Books, in being much more intermixed with Old-Latin readings. These 
facts, taken together with the singular position into which it is displaced, lead irresistibly to the con- 
clusion that the scribe, in attempting to put together a complete New Testament (an achievement 
which, so far as we know, had been previously accomplished by no Irish scribe),* had been at first 
unable to obtain an exemplar of the Acts. When he found one, it was, as we perceive, distinct in 

1 See pp. xvii, xviii, Ixxv, sujir. « See p. cxiv, su;pr. ; also p. xv. 

' See p. cxxvii, su^r., and in Chap, x, tnfr. 

* No other of the early Latin biblical MSS. of Irish origin exhibits the whole New Testament ; most of 
them are MSS. of the Gospels only. 

Plate V. 

I>innttt<J Mti\iu^ cfiifiJfmAtim 
1 »h^>^ 4l' )vnn»i<«»(m<*n r w w Ja 

\\m)ih'. "^1^4* •'r?'^?'' »»'i^»' 'TWMi. 

, V-!> tclLltitiii-- iMij '.ih.ViiniiiJi )(\\: -^ 

'H^ f'''^'^^ "^l '^P'*^**"^ •^""''■' "^ '5*'* 
' yutf^Ba-- — '- 

FoL. 170 V^. 

Plate VI. 

Y^mjfhum^YAinAyjmm-) chA 
'm^nOviuUtncinAQiA, ^|1^tt^ 

^ i^-LiTJpfif WYijch^ipffv^ 

■II Tl. 

FoL. 175 V°. 


character from those whence he had derived the text of the other Books, — presumably therefore came 
from a different source, and not until after a considerable interval. And here again we note that lapse 
of time is marked with a coincident change of manner. The handwriting is of a later period : it shows 
marks of senility. It falls not a little short of the excellence of all that stands before it ; — the columns 
are no longer of regular width, nor are the lines always straight ; the letters are crowded, and 
sometimes almost clumsy — the writer's hand has lost something of its cunning. It is hardly to be 
regarded as an example of a fourth manner, but rather of a degeneration from the former fullness 
of his maturer skill. 

On these data we may venture to sketch the history of the construction of the MS., somewhat as 

The scribe seems in the first instance to have undertaken merely to transcribe a text of the 
Pauline writings. There is even reason to think that the forty-two leaves which contain them were at 
first meant to be a separate book, and even that they were for some time in use as such, — as they are 
capable of being, filling as they do the five quires assigned to them. The chafed and defaced con- 
dition of their first page (f. 109 r") seems to be indicative of such separate use. Possibly, however, 
the Catholic Epistles and Apocalypse, written soon after, occupying two more quires, may have been 
included in the same volume. About the same time the scribe seems to have entered on the work of 
compiling the Patrician documents, which at first consisted only of Muirchu (lacking Preface and 
Table of Capita of first Book), Tirechan, and the Additamenta, nearly filling eighteen leaves — one full 
quire of twelve folios (1-12), and six leaves of another, a quire of eight folios (13-20) — and leaving 
the lower half of col. h of fol. 18 v", and the whole of fT. 19 and 20, blank. At this point he has 
inserted a final note, and a sort of colophon {" Scripsi hunc ut potui librum"), filling the upper 
half of 18 zi° b, and marking the close of his compilation. At a later, but undetermined, date, 
having found an exemplar which exhibited the Preface and Tables of Muirchu i., he transcribed them 
on f. 20 r° (leaving f. 19 for the notulae which, in a diflferent script, he began to enter on the blank 
part of 18 0° b, and on 19 r°). Then, in continuation of this Patrician supplement, on f. 20 v° he began 
a transcript of what in his time, must have been a very recent document — the Liber Ange It ; and to 
provide room for it he appended a small quire (a binio), in which he completed the Liber Angeli, and 
concluded this Division by subjoining, though in a seriously curtailed form, the famous Confessio. To 
the same period as these supplementary documents of the Patrician Division are to be assigned the 
ten quires which exhibit the Gospels, with the seven leaves of preliminary matter which introduce 
them. These he prefixed to the previously written Epistles (Pauline and Catholic) and Apocalypse, 
to which, later on, he added the Acts, thus completing his New Testament (our Second Division of the 
MS.). In putting them together, he no doubt took occasion to insert the leaves (fF. j86-8) which 
introduce the Pauline text, and to add the matter on ff. 160 v° and 170 v° which connects the Apocalypse- 
quire with the Catholic Epistles which precede it and with the Acts which follow it. — But at what 
time the notulae were written on ff. 18 0° 3 and 19 r°, we have little ground forjudging. Here, the 
script being different, the test of manner of calligraphy fails to help us. Prima facie it is natural to 
assume that they were written there before the supplementary pages (ff. 20-24), '" which we have 
observed the scribe's maturest manner.' But it is possible that, in beginning to transcribe the docu- 
ments which fill ff. 20-24, he intentionally reserved f. 1 9 for the reception of such incomplete memo- 
randa as he might afterwards desire to append to the compilation, which he evidently regarded as 
completed at the middle of f. 18 v° b. 

But the New Testament, thus completed, does not seem ever to have come into separate use. Its 
early leaves bear no marks of injury, stain, or friction, such as have left their marks on the first page 
of the Pauline Epistles, and have led to the loss of the first leaf of the Patrician Division. This 
Division seems to have been joined to the New Testament Division so as to stand before it from the 
first, — or at least from a very early stage of its history, — as is indicated by the name, Canoin Phadraig, 
which, as we have seen (p. cii, supr.), was its regular designation in the first notice that has reached 
us of its existence, in the tenth century. 

• If these notulae were written before f. 20, the conjecture as to their origin advanced above, p. Ixxiv, 
can hardly be maintained. For if they were written after Torbach's death (807), they were written after 
St. Matthew's Gospel (see p. cxiv), with which f. 20 seems to be contemporary. 



Probably the Third Division (St. Martin) likewise, as now, formed part of the MS. when it finally 
left the scriptorium as a completed volume. It, like the Gospels, shows on its opening pages no signs 
of separate use ; and though the handwriting gives no definite clue to its age relating to the other two 
divisions, it bears two tokens of posteriority. These are — (i) that it is in one respect incomplete, the 
last initial letter being outlined but not finished (f. 220 »°), and another, which was meant to be 
the last, never having been inserted in the place left for it (f. 221 »°) ; — (2) that the last of its three 
quires is written on the very choice vellum which elsewhere is only used to receive the text of 
St. John, — a fact of which the natural explanation seems to be, that the scribe, having exhausted 
his stock of the ordinary material, fell back on what remained of the finer sheets which he had in 

Of the ornamental initials or monograms, no use has been made in the above attempt to ascertain 
the order in which the several parts of the MS. have been written. To all appearance, they are the 
work of an artist who was not the scribe' — though possibly in the Gospels they (including the Evan- 
gelistic symbols) may be ascribed to the latter, executed as they are with the pen simply, and not 
heightened with colour, as throughout the rest of the Second Division, and the Third. The First 
Division, as we now have it, lacks such embellishments, though possibly one may have headed the 
first column of the lost f. i. Why this is so, — and again, why the Gospels are thus left comparatively 
plain, while the first leaf of St. Martin's Life is quadruply decorated, is not obvious ; nor do these 
facts appear to have any bearing on the question treated in this Note. It is remarkable that the very 
page, f. 109 r°, which, as regards penmanship, bears signs of being the earliest written in the ms., 
exhibits an initial (P) of "Paulus" of singular perfection of execution, — one for which, and for the 
great A of " Apocalipsis" on f. 171 r", it may be claimed that, though small in scale, yet in elaborate 
refinement of skill they are worthy of the best of the hands to whose work we owe that masterpiece 
of Celtic art, — the Book of Kells. 

1 That this is so is made probable by the non-completion (above noticed) of the artist's work on 
fE. 220 v°, 221 v, and also by certain cases in which the blank left by the scribe has been incompletely 
filled ; — as in f. 128 r" and f. 130 v, only the letter P has been supplied where (in one case) Paulus, and in 
the other Pau, is required. 


CONTENTS OF THE MS.— resumed. 



The two preceding Chapters, viii. and ix., deviate from the natural order 
of this Introduction, being interposed before the consideration of the Contents of 
our MS. has been completed. This arrangement has been made for the sake of 
homogeneity. The historical and antiquarian details into which these Chapters 
enter seem to be placed most fitly as a sequel to the study of the First of the 
three main Divisions of the Book — the records which it preserves of St. Patrick 
and the Churches founded by him and his followers — which occupies Chapters 
II.— vii. We now return to our examination of its Contents, and proceed in the 
present Chapter to enter on the Second Division, the largest and (by reason of 
its sacred character) the most important of the three — the New Testament in 
Latin as it was read by the Church in Ireland eleven hundred years ago. The 
Third Division — the biographical documents relating to St. Martin — will be 
treated of in our next and concluding Chapter (xi. ). 

Section I. : The Place of our ms. in the Classification of mss. of the 

Latin Vulgate. 

Subsection i . Variation in Text among the MSS. 

The Latin text of the New Testament, as exhibited in the Book of Armagh, 
is that of St. Jerome, known as the Vulgate. 

Of the extant mss. of this famous version, which are innumerable, some are 
of high antiquity, dating from the sixth century — some as late as the sixteenth ; 
and their total number, to which each of the intervening centuries has contributed 
its quota, far exceeds that of the existing written copies of any other book. — In 
text, they vary widely among themselves, even the earliest of them. Their 
variations prove on examination to be in great measure due to admixture — intro- 
duced partly no doubt by the inadvertence of the transcribers, but partly also (as 
it seems) of set purpose — of renderings and phrases, retained by habit or by 
preference, from the earlier Latin versions which, though diverse and often 
discrepant, are comprehended under the common name of the " Old Latin." 

R 2 


St. Jerome's Latin New Testament was professedly a revision of a form of the Old 
Latin rather than an independent translation from the Greek' ; and the Old Latin, 
in one or another shape, continued for many generations after his time to be 
read side by side with his Version.^ Thus it has resulted that, though his work 
finally won the predominance which it deserved and retains, it emerged from 
the struggle with a text so disturbed that the Decree of a General Council and 
the intervention of Papal authority were ultimately judged to be necessary in 
order to settle it and to secure for the Church an "authentic" printed text. — The 
"Clementine" Vulgate of 1592, including the whole Latin Bible, is now univer- 
sally received, used, and cited, as "The Latin Vulgate" — an excellent edition 
for all practical purposes, though it is not to be regarded as reproducing, nor 
does it claim to reproduce,* with critical accuracy, the Latin Bible as it was given 
by St. Jerome to the Church. 

Subsection ii. The Classes and Families of the MSS. 

The critics who, with a view to recovering the Vulgate text as originally 
issued by St. Jerome, have studied the many mss. which have claims to be 
regarded as ancient and accurate copies, have found them on examination capable 
of being classified into Families. Copies which come from the same region, or 
which can be traced to a common origin, prove to present, with something of 
uniformity, common textual characteristics, and may be grouped accordingly.^ Of 
the Families thus marked out, some exhibit more, some less, of the tendency — from 
which none of them is free — to deviate from what may be regarded as the normal 
type of text ; and where this tendency is most marked, the deviation is usually 
(as above noted) towards reversion to or retention of the Old Latin in some 
form. Thus, among the distinctive characters by which each Family of Vulgate 
New Testament mss. is marked, is to be reckoned the extent, greater or smaller, 
of the prevalence in its text of Old Latin readings or renderings. 

Subsection hi. The Celtic Family : its Mixed Text. 

Of these Families, the Celtic is recognized as one of the most clearly 
discriminated." A group of Vulgate N.T. mss. exists, written, with few excep- 
tions, in Celtic countries — mostly in Ireland, or by Celtic (in most cases Irish) 
scribes — none of them probably earlier than the seventh, or later than the 
tenth century, which exhibit (though with manifold variation) a common type 
of text, conspicuously distinguished from that of the other Families by the 

' See Ep. Ad Damasum, — prefixed to the Vulgate Gospels. 

''So Pope Gregory the Great (circ. 600): " Sedes Apostolica cui auctore Deo praesideo, utraque 
[uersione] utitur." Eptsi. Ad Leandrum, c. 5. ' Council of Trent, Sess. iv., Deer. ii. (1546). 

* See Praefatio Ad Lectorem, prefixed to the Clementine Vulgate. 

' For the Classes and Families of N .T. Vulgate MSS., see Wordsworth and White's Nouum Testamenium 
sec. Ediiionem S. Hieronymi (as cited below), Pars l.fasc. i., Praefatio, pp. x el sqq. ; fasc. v., E^ilogus, 
pp. 705 el sqq. * Wordsworth and White, as in last note, I. v., pp. 713 ei sqq. 


abnormal amount of Old Latin admixture which pervades it generally, though 
not uniformly. To this group our Armagh New Testament belongs. As we have 
seen (above, chapters i., viii.),^ it was written by an Irish official Scribe, 
working (presumably at Armagh) under the direction of the chief Prelate 
(himself originally an official Scribe) of the Irish Church, Its text is professedly 
Vulgate; for it is introduced by St. Jerome's Dedicatory Epistle to Pope Damasus; 
but, as we shall see, it is Vulgate varied by Old Latin readings and renderings, 
freely but unevenly intermixed, yet nowhere so extensively as to obscure its 
fundamental character as a Vulgate ms. 

In its group — the Celtic Family — it stands alone in the important respect 
that, whereas the rest are mss. of the Gospels only, it contains the whole New 
Testament. This fact will necessarily modify our treatment, in the ensuing 
sections of this chapter, of the text of the sacred Books as exhibited in it. In 
our next Section (ii), which will deal with the Gospels, we shall have to compare 
its text with that of six or more mss. of the same Family ; but in our survey 
of its text of the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse, which will be dealt with in the 
remaining Sections, no material exists available for such comparison. 

In their great critical edition of the Latin Vulgate New Testament, above 
referred to. Bishop Wordsworth and Mr. White employ {Prae/atio to Pars \. fasc. i., 
pp. X— xiv; fasc. v., Epilogus, pp. 713-716) as representatives of the Celtic Family 
— besides our Book of Armagh, which is "D" in their notation — the following 
four: — 'Y\\Q Egerton ms. ("E"), The ZiV^/f^/af [otherwise the Llandaff'\ ms. ("L"), 
The Book of Kelts ("Q"), and the Rushworth ms. (" R"). With these four is to 
be classed a fifth, not included in the list of textual authorities of Wordsworth 
and White's Edition, the Book of Dimma, which we propose to refer to as " dim." 
Another Irish ms. of the Gospels of great importance, and of earlier date than 
any of the above-mentioned, is the Book of Durrow, which, though not one of 
their list, is now and then cited by them. Of it, by reason of the exceptional 
character of its text, it will be necessary to treat separately (designating it as 

Of these mss., the following brief account will suffice : — 

L. The " Book of St. Chad" ; Lichfield Cathedral Library. Written in a fine semiuncial hand 
probably of the eighth century (possibly of the late seventh), and richly ornamented. It now contains 
only St. Matthew's and St. Mark's Gospels, and the beginning of St. Luke's (breaking off in iii. 9). 
Carefully edited (with photographic facsimiles) by Dr. Scrivener (1887). 

Q. The "Book of Kells"; Library of Trinity College, Dublin (A. i. 6; No. 58 of Catalogue). 
Similar to L, and probably coeval with it, but surpassing it and all other MSS. of like origin in the 
beauty of its script and of its profuse ornamentation. It has lost a few verses from St. Luke (ch. xii. 
6-18) ; and the latter part of St. John (ch. xvii. 19, to end), as well as part of chh. xii, xiii (xii. 27 — 
xiii. 20). Dr. Abbott has subjoined a collation of its text to that of the Old Latin (n) edited by him 
(1884., Evangeliorum Versio Antehieronym. — see below, p. cxlii, n. '). 

R. The "Rushworth Gospels," Bodleian Library, Oxford (Auct. D. 2. 19), also known as 
" Gospels of MacRegol," after the name of its scribe : he died a.d. 820 ; and the ms. is therefore to 


be assigned to the latter end of the eighth centuiy or the beginning of the ninth century. Defective 
in St. Luke only, by the loss of pages, in three places. Edited, along with Y (see below, p. cxxxix), 
for the Surtees Society, 1854-64, by Stevenson and Waring; re-edited by W. W. Skeat, 1887.' 

E. The " Egerton ms.," London, British Museum (Egerton 609) ; formerly of the Monastery of 
Marmoutier (" majoris monasterii "), Tours; hence noted (after Calmet) by Tischendorf, &c., as 
" mm." Probably is of the latter part of the ninth century, and thus, is lowest in date of the group. 
Of St. Mark it now contains only chh. i-vi, and has also lost a small part of St. Matthew xv, and 
chh. i-vii. 23 of St. Luke, but gives St. John complete. Of this MS. the ornamentation is Celtic, but 
not the script ; and the character of its text is less exclusively Celtic than that of Ddim LQR. 

dim. The "Book of Dimma"; Library of Trinity College, Dublin (A. 4. 23 ; Catalogue No. 59).'' 
Written in an indifferent minuscule script; probably of the ninth century, if not earlier. It has 
even been assigned by some to the seventh century ; the time of " Dimma MacNathi," whose 
name appears in the colophon. Has lost a small part of Mc. (ii. s-iii. 24); and of Lc. (xiv. i8-xv. 18). 

dur. The " Book of Durrow" ; Library of Trinity College, Dublin (A. 4. 5 ; Catalogue No. s?)- 
Written in an excellent semiuncial hand, with elaborate Celtic ornamentation — both apparently of 
an earlier type than that which appears in L or Q. Of this ms., as of Q (see above). Dr. Abbott has 
given a collation in Evangg. Vers. Anlehieron. ; its text is fortunately complete. It can hardly be dated 
later than the middle of the seventh century. 

Subsection iv. Our MS. compared with its kindred MSS. as to Text. 

Our first business is to compare the text of D {our Book of Armagh) with the 
texts of dimELQR collectively and severally. 

To all these six mss. the same general description applies. Not only do they 
all present mixed texts, exhibiting many notable readings common to some or 
all of them, that diverge from the normal type of the Vulgate, but farther, the 
character of the mixture is the same in all. None of them can be regarded as an 
Old Latin copy modified more or less uniformly into conformity with the Vulgate : 
in each and all the Vulgate is the basis ; and the Old Latin readings are devia- 
tions from that type, introduced apparently at random, and without uniformity — 
perhaps unconsciously in some cases.^ Moreover, the Vulgate text which 
underlies is Vulgate of a good type, in many cases preserving the readings 
which are received by Wordsworth and White into their text, as attested by the 
consent of the mss. of their Classis I, or by other convincing evidence. Thus, to 
state the case in other terms, this Celtic Family of Vulgate mss. is distinguished, 
as, on the one hand, by the largeness of the Old Latin element which pervades 
it, so, on the other hand (though in a less degree), by its freedom from other 

This latter distinction belongs in a notable degree to our D. Taking the 
Amiatine text (A,* the leading ms. of Wordsworth and White's Classis Prima), 
as it is usually taken, for our standard of the purest Vulgate text in the Gospels, 

' In the present work we follow the re-collation made for W-W. 

^ Collated for the present edition by Rev. Professor J. H. Bernard, D.D. 

' See, however, below, note ' on p. cxli, for Dom Chapman's contrary view. 

* It is superfluous to offer here an account of this the most famous of all MSS. of the Vulgate Bible. See 
(for the N.T. part of it) Tischendorf's N.T. Amiatinum (Leipzig, 1850) : also, W-W (as above), I. i, p. xi ; 
V, p. 706. It was written circ. joo, and is now in the Laurentian Library, Florence. Its text of the Gospels 
is complete. 


we find on comparison that D often exhibits for many consecutive columns 
a text which, with few exceptions, is substantially identical with that of A. 
Moreover, in not a few places it preserves readings which are preferred by 
Wordsworth and White' to those which A exhibits. And, except in its often 
aberrant orthography, its tendency to alter the order of words, and to supply 
words, usually in the supposed interest of clearness or of emphasis (all of which 
characteristics are shared with it by its Celtic congeners) — and apart from obvious 
blunders of oversight or misunderstanding — it may be safely laid down that 
where D deviates in text from the standard of their Classis I, it is found in nearly 
every case to follow some form of the Old Latin. 

It is not possible, however, to affirm confidently that D presents, on the 
whole, a sounder Vulgate text of the Gospels than do its congeners. A 
laborious study of its text, in detailed comparison with theirs severally, yields 
no definite result. Its agreement with the text of Classis I is, as we have said, 
broken by frequent deviations in the direction of the Old Latin ; and In these it Is 
rarely without the companionship of one or more of the other Celtic mss. Some- 
times all the Mss. of the group go together in these departures. But for the 
most part their testimony is divided; none of them is uniform In Its Old Latin 
tendencies ; in each of them it shows itself, not continuously, but in varying 
proportion from page to page. No one who has examined these mss. has been 
able to detect any law by which the Intermixture was guided ; It seems to have 
been a matter of haphazard, or of arbitrary preference or casual recollection 
causing the substitution of an old word or phrase for one that was new to the 
scribe and unfamiliar. Little, if anything, Is to be obtained by counting variants 
so arbitrarily introduced; a mere reckoning up of them as they occur In each ms. 
would be misleading as a guide to the appraisement of its textual value : for 
variants must be weighed and classified as well as numbered before we can found 
on them a safe judgment as to the character of the text in which they occur. 

Subsection v. The Book of Durrow not included in this Family. 

At this point it is desirable to revert to the consideration of that other ms. 
of which a passing mention has been made above, which, though Celtic In origin 
and in script, is not to be included in the Celtic Family in respect of its textual 
character — the Book of Durrow (dur). This ms., probably (as above noted) older 
than any one of the seven above mentioned by more than one generation,* perhaps 
by a century — Is yet more widely removed from them In its textual affinities. It 
presents a text so closely approaching to the Amiatine — probably yet more closely 
to that of the Lindlsfarne Gospels (Y,^ which is nearly akin to the Amiatine), — 

' Examples are given in the following Sections. 

'^ So Berger, Hist, de la Vulg. " Sans doute le plus ancien des nianuscrits de cette famille " (p. 41). 

' See for this fine MS. W-W. as above, I. i. p. xiv, v. p. 706 ; also note on Cod. R, above, p. cxxxviii. 
Like the Amiatine, it was written ctrc. 700. It is now in Brit. Mus. (Cotton. Nero. D. iv). It contains the 
four Gospels, complete. In purity of text it equals A ; and in beauty of ornamentation it approaches Q. 


and so slightly affected by Old Latin intermixture, that we may well claim for it 
a place, not with the Celtic Family in Classis II, but with A and Y (the great 
Northumbrian texts) in Classis I. The Book of Durrow is, on pal geographical 
grounds, to be assigned, if not to the sixth century, at least to the earlier years of 
the seventh ; and the colophon, which professes to be from the hand " Columbae 
scripioris,'" may be accepted as evidence that the book is (though probably not 
the actual autograph of the Columba who founded Durrow and Icolumcille, and 
died A.D. 597) at least an early transcript made from a copy written by that 
great Saint. Thus the text of dur (though not the actual ms.) carries us back to 
the latter years of the sixth century ; and is a standing witness to the fact of the 
existence in Ireland, before the year 600, of a Vulgate text of the Gospels, 
comparable in purity to that which, shortly before or shortly after 700, was avail- 
able in Northumbria to Eadfrid when he transcribed the Lindisfarne Gospels, or 
to the scribe or scribes who wrote for Ceolfrid the great Amiatlne Bible. 

Subsection vi. Genesis of the Mixed Text of the Family. 

Hence the question arises, How has It come to pass that the current Irish text 
of the Gospels as represented by the consent of Ddim ELQR — later but still very 
early copies — has fallen away so far from the purity of the oldest extant Irish text ? 
Are we to suppose that along with, or not very long after, the exemplars of the 
approximately pure Vulgate text which dur represents, there were introduced into 
Ireland from abroad (from Gaul perhaps, or from Italy) other and probably more 
numerous exemplars presenting a mixed text, which were preferred by the Irish 
scribes and superseded the earlier and truer copies ? 

It Is no doubt possible that such Introduction of mixed Vulgate texts may have 
occurred. Ancient copies of the Vulgate text, largely affected by Old Latin 
admixture, are forthcoming from many parts of Europe ; and of these, some may 
have from time to time reached Ireland, from some Continental source, at a date 
earlier than that of any of the extant Vulgate mss. that were written in Ireland. 

But It Is very much more probable that In our Celtic mss. of mixed text, the 
intermixture of the Old Latin element took place mainly in Celtic countries, and 
is due to Celtic editors, or scribes acting as editors. For («) though such 
intermixture is often to be met with in mss. of other than Celtic type, it Is 
specially characteristic of — in fact, normal to — those of Celtic family. ((5) Ireland, 
though she must necessarily have received the Vulgate in the first instance 
from abroad, was from a very early period far less an Importer that an exporter 
of Vulgate manuscripts, — not so much a recipient of the work of foreign scribes, 
as the parent and sender forth of the famous and admirable calligraphers who pro- 
duced the fine copies still treasured in so many of the libraries of Europe, {c) More 
definite evidence to the like effect appears In the fact that of Continental mss. 
which have a mixed Vulgate text like that of our Celtic group, many show signs 
of an unquestionably Irish hand in the script, or else in their ornamentation, or 


in both. (flf)The facts of the case, as we have seen them to be, as regards the 

existing Irish mss. of the Latin Vulgate (all in common showing a text largely 

affected with Old Latin intermixture, with the notable exception of one, and 

that the oldest one, which alone is free in the main from the Old Latin element), 

are most simply and naturally accounted for by our explanation as above laid 

down. For that explanation requires us to suppose nothing but what we know 

to have actually taken place — a process to which the existing documents 

correspond: — a Vulgate text introduced (through some foreign channel), in a 

form approximately pure, probably as early as the sixth century, possibly under 

Columban auspices, into a Church in whose monasteries diligent and skilled 

scribes abounded, familiar with the Gospels in some form of the Old Latin. By 

the labours of such scribes in active but uncritical transcription, there would be 

produced copies showing a hybrid text — with multiform variation, due to the 

random methods of transcribers, whose aim was edification rather than accuracy, 

and who would naturally retain as much of the old as could readily be worked 

into the fabric of the new — a text such as we find in the Celtic Family, endlessly 

varying as we turn from copy to copy, yet distinguished by one well-marked and 

conspicuous character, the predominance in it of Old Latin readings. And, 

lastly, [e) ample evidence exists to show that the materials for forming such a 

text as that of the Celtic group were ready at hand for the workmen whose 

industrious and skilful hands were busy in the Celtic monasteries. 

On these grounds we are warranted in inferring that the Vulgate text, after 
its introduction into Ireland in the seventh or probably the later years of the sixth 
century, incurred, in successive transcriptions by Irish scribes, its admixture with 
the familiar Old Latin text with which their memories were saturated and their 
religious life bound up — that admixture which is so conspicuous and distinctive 
in all our group of "Celtic" Gospel mss. of later date than the Book of Durrow} 

Subsection vii. Irish Old-Latin MSS. 

Of the two factors which thus go to the making of this Celtic Latin text — 
(i) the Vulgate as it came from St. Jerome's hand, and (2) the Old Latin in some 
of its forms — the former, as we have seen, is forthcoming in the shape of the Book 
0/ Durrow: the presence of the latter in Ireland is not merely an hypothesis, but 
a fact. We might indeed safely assume that the Gospels came to Ireland at first 
in an Old Latin version^ : in the earlier years of the Irish Church the Vulgate 

p -. ., „ 

(p. 179) — a description applicable 

page) properly classed as vt, not to that of our " Celtic Family." 

=> We may confidently accept the tradition (recorded p. 16 5, infr.) that St. Patrick brought with him into 
Ireland copies (of course, Latin) of the Gospels. But his writings, as we have them, yield no distinct evidence 
as to the nature of the text known to him. It is possible, moreover, that such copies had reached Ireland 
long before his time (see above, pp. Ixxxvi, Ixxxviii, xcix, for the traces of pre-Patrician Christianity in the 
southern parts). It seems idle, therefore, to speculate on the question whether in the Old Latin of the 
existing Irish MSS. r\ ri. (v, of which we treat in this Subsection, or the Old Latin element which pervades 
the Celtic group of Vulgate mss., there survives anything of the text which he introduced. 


New Testament had not attained so wide a range of acceptance as to have 
reached a region so remote as Ireland ; and it would be rash to affirm that before 
the end of the sixth century it had made good its footing even in Gaul. But 
setting aside such consideration of probabilities, we produce the Old Latin ms., 
Cod. Usserianus I. (distinguished as rj), an actual example of a copy of the 
Gospels as known and accepted in Ireland before any ms. of the existing " Celtic 
group" was written.' It is a copy admittedly of date not later than a.d. 600, 
exhibiting an Old Latin text of the family distinguished as " European." In it 
no element borrowed from the Vulgate is discernible. Its general character is 
closely akin to other Old Latin texts of that family, yet of a type that presents 
features distinctly Irish. 

Nor is this ms. the only surviving remnant of the Old Latin as read in Ireland 
before the Vulgate superseded it. It is indeed the only one which is Old Latin 
throughout, the only one which, before time and decay had done their work upon it, 
was indisputably a complete Irish example of the Gospels in an Old Latin version. 
But two other mss. of the Gospels exist which are found to embody, in what is 
otherwise a Vulgate text, large portions of Old Latin, closely akin in text to 
Usser. I. One of these, distinguished as Usser. II. (formerly known as the 
" Garland 0/ Howth^'), though not earlier than the tenth century, proves to follow 
the Old Latin through the Gospel of St. Matthew, and in part of St. Luke. The 
Old Latin portion of this ms. is distinguished as r^."^ In another, the Book 0/ Mulling^, 
probably coeval with our Book of Armagh, Dr. Lawlor has acutely identified as 
Old Latin two considerable portions, one in the First and one in the Third 
Gospel ; and these Old Latin portions he designates by the letter /a. 

These copies, then — Vulgate Gospels with a text thus filled in with large 
patches of Old Latin — though in textual value inferior to Usser. I., have this 
special value and interest for us, that they give us an insight into the random 
method in which the Celtic mixed texts were brought into existence. They 
belong to a period when the Old Latin continued in use side by side with the 
Vulgate, not only retained in the offices of the Church, but in the scriptorium of 
the monastery. When a scribe found gaps in the exemplar from whence he was 
transcribing one version, he would fill them up, as in the case of these MSs., by 
turning to another exemplar which enabled him to supply the defect out of the 
other version. Thus copies would be produced, representing in part one, in part 
the other, of two exemplars, each perhaps an imperfect one, but each sufficient 
to supplement the other. The Book of Mulling is apparently such a copy, or 
more probably an early transcript of such a copy; and the Garland of Howth 

' This MS. (Library of Trin. Coll., Dublin, A. 4. 15 ; Catal,, No. 55) has been edited by Dr. Abbott, 
Evangeliorum. Versio Antehieron., as above cited (on Q, p. cxxxvii). He assigns it to the latter part 
of the sixth century. See his Praefatio, See also Berger (as above), p. 31. 

* A collation of r% is included in Dr. Abbott's work above cited, Pars II. pp. 819 e^ sqq. It is A. 4. 6 of 
Trin. Coll., Dublin {Catal., No. 56). See also his Praefatio, p. xiv. 

' This MS, is in the Library of Trin. Coll., Dublin, A, 4. 20 ; Catal., No. 60. See Dr. Lawlor's Chapters 
on the Book of Mulling (1897). 


shows that such copies were preserved and reproduced even in a much later age. 
Moreover, the fact thus established — that Old Latin copies were ready at hand 
to the scribes as they worked — shows that the intermixture of Old Latin readings 
or expressions in the Vulgate text may be due, not merely, as above suggested, 
to the memory of the transcriber recalling the old familiar words and phrases : 
it may well be that he deliberately chose from his Old Latin Gospel readings 
which he judged to be more edifying, or liked better, than what he found in the 
newer text, and that he intentionally inserted them into the text of his transcript, 
or at least on its margin. In the latter case these alternative readings would 
often find their way into the text, sometimes in substitution, sometimes as inter- 
polations, in the course of successive transcriptions. And thus the underlying 
Vulgate would be made more and more not only to revert to the earlier versions, 
but to admit doublet (or " dittograph " ) renderings, such as disfigure the text 
of some of the most famous mss. of this group (notably the Book of Kells), and 
are not unknown even in the more carefully constructed text of our Book of 

Subsection viii. Method pursued in the following Sections. 

Our MS., then, is to be studied not with the expectation of finding in it any 
salient features to distinguish it from the other mss. of the Celtic family, nor 
perhaps any special affinities with any one of them above the rest. Accordingly 
it seems that the best way to give a just idea of its contents and their value is 
to give a classified summary of its notable readings — not by any means exhaustive 
(for such a summary would be excessive in bulk and superfluous), but sufficient to 
illustrate the nature of its text and its relations with the other important texts 
of the Vulgate — beginning with the Gospels, and (so far as available materials 
enable us) pursuing our examination through all the divisions of the New 

The subjoined lists of examples are presented not as a fresh collection of 
critical material, but merely as a rearrangement, for the purposes of this Chapter, 
of material borrowed from other works of wider scope, — here put together in such 
shape as to illustrate the character of the text of our ms., by bringing it into 
detailed comparison with the evidence of the other authorities which are of weight 
in the determination of the true text of the Vulgate New Testament. 

As regards mss. of the Vulgate, the material employed in the summaries which occupy Sections 
II-VI, is in the main drawn from the ample and admirable Apparatus Criticus given by Wordsworth 
and White in their great Nouum Tesiamentum Latine above referred to, — an edition (above and hence- 
forth cited as "W-W") which supplies the basis, not merely valuable but indispensable, for this 
Chapter as for all works which treat of the New Testament Vulgate text.' We follow them, in their 

' For examples of such lapses in D, see below, Subsection iv of each of the Sections II-VI of this 

* Many other works have also been used in this discussion, chief among which is to be named the 
excellent Hisioire de la Vulgate of the late M. Samuel Berger (Paris, 1893) above cited, p. cxxxix, n. 2. 




selection of mss. and other textual authorities compared, in their notation,' and in their grouping of 
Mss. into Families classified in point of textual importance. In our summaries, however, the Vulgate 
MSS. cited are not placed alphabetically, as in W-W's notes. For our purpose, it has seemed more 
suitable to rearrange them, citing first the mss. of the Celtic family, dimELQR (setting dur apart), and 
those akin to them (as ept, &c.) ; then the leading mss. of Classis I (AY, followed by FMZ, &c.) ; 
then the rest. The Old Latin mss. are cited in alphabetical order, but the readings of the three Irish 
Old Lat., n ru ii, are given more particularly than the rest. 

(«) The following mss. form W-W's Classis I ; — 

A, Amialinus (Florence). O, Oxoniensis (Oxford, BodL). 

*A, Dunelmensis (Durham). P, Perusinus (Perugia). 

F, Fuldensis (Fulda). S, Stonyhurstensis (Stonyhurst). 

H, Huhertianus (London, Brit. Mus.). X, Cantabrigensis (Cambridge, Corp. Chr.). 

J, Foro-Juliensis (Frinli). Y, Lindisfamensis (London, Br. Mus.). 

M, Mediolanensis {Mi\z.r\, Bibliot. Ambr.) Z, ffarkianus (London, Br. Mus.). 

Also, (our ,ept) Epternacensis (Paris, Biblioth. Nat.), of which the place of origin and the date are 
disputed ; while the character of its text associates it rather with the Celtic group (of Classis II). j 

Of these, A and Y have been treated of above (pp. cxxxviii, n. 4; cxxxix, n. 3); they are closely 
akin in text, and coeval, written not later — A, than 715; Y, than 721. With A and S (which are 
perhaps rather earlier) they form the Northumbrian group. — H, though akin to AY in text, is later, 
to be assigned to the ninth century ; ept (see above), rather to the eighth. OX are a pair of kindred 
mss., traced to a common abode at Canterbury — assigned, but doubtfully, to the seventh. Of the rest, 
JZ are reckoned as earlier ; F (certainly written between 541 and 546), with M and P, are earliest of all. 

All these appear to be immediately (as JMP), or remotely (as the rest), of Italian parentage. 

A is cited by W-W for St. John's Gospel only ; S contains that Gospel alone ; P is fragmentary, 
and exhibits parts of St. Luke only. In our summaries we cite (besides AY) FMZ chiefly. 

With dur {Durmachensis, Dublin, Trin. Coll.), which we regard as entitled to rank in this Classis, 
we have dealt above (Subsect. iii, p. cxxxviii ; Subsect. v, p. cxxxix). 

{b) The mss. of Classis II are — 

(i) The Celtic group — our D (Ardmachanus), with ELQR {Egertonensis, Lichfeldensis, Kenanensis , 
Rushworthianus), all treated of above (Subsect. iii, pp. cxxxvii, cxxxviii) ; (2) the two Spanish MSS, 
C, Cauensis (La Cava, near Naples); and T, Toletanus (Madrid); (3) B, Bigotianus; and G, Sanger- 
manensis P (Paris, Biblioth. Nat.) ; bnv,' Bsneuentanus (London, Br. Mus.) — all three probably Gallic 
in origin. Of (i) LQ are assigned to the eighth century; DR to the earlier years of the ninth, E to 
its later years : of (2) and (3) all probably also to the ninth (B perhaps earlier). 

With these our summaries associate ept' (see above [a)), and dim, the Book of Dimma (see 
p. cxxxviii) : also gat', the St. Gatien MS. (Paris, Bibl. N), and mrt', the St. Martin MS. (Tours), both 
presenting strong affinities of text with the Celtic group, and probably belonging to the same period. 

Besides these, there are the MS. ® {Theodulfianus, Paris, Bibl. N), representing a revision of (circ.) 
A.D. 800, which closely agrees with the corrections attached to H ; and two of the later ninth century, 
representing the revision of Alcuin, namely, K, Karolinus (London, Br. Mus.), and V, Vallicellanus 
(Rome, Bibliot. VallicelL). With this latter pair, W-W associate mrt (see above). 

For the citations of all the above (except AY, dur, and DLQR, dim), our summaries depend on 
the W-W edition, as above ; or (in a few instances) on the references in Tischendorf's N.T. Gr. (Ed. 
Crit. 8va maior) to ET, gat. Their twelfth -century MS, W, we have not cited 

' We add (as above stated, p, cxxvii) but two to the number of MSS. cited,— the Book of Burrow (to 
Classis I), and the Book of Dimma (to Classis II), noting them as "dur" and "dim" respectively. For 
three of W-W's MSS. we alter the notation— Codd. Epternac, Mart.-Turon., and Beneuent. (ept, mrt, bnv), 
for which they have employed monograms. 

2 In St. Matthew, G presents an Old Latin text, and is cited among O.L. as gu see next page. 

3 See for B, 0, ept, bnv, gat, mrt, Berger, Hist, de la Vulg., pp. 46, 47 ; 50, 52 ; 91, 92 ; 149. 


(f) The Old Latin mss^ of the Gospels employed here are, — 

a {Vsronens.) Cent. iv. jf [otherwise /i] {Cordetens. II) Cent, iv [Ed. 

b i^VercelUns.) „ v. B\icha.iia.n, Old L. Texts, No. W]. 

c {Colberlin.) „ xiorxii. I {Rehdigeran.) Cent. vii. 

(/ (5««e; grof D.)' „ vi. q {Monacens.) „ viorvii. 

e {Palatin.) „ iv orv (much mutil.). r^ {Usserian. I) „ vi (much mutil.). 

/ {Brixian.) „ vi. 8 {Sangall; gr of A)' „ ix. 

The above present a text more or less complete, and free, in great measure, from Vulg. admixture. 
Besides these there axe:—ffi {Corbeiens. I), Matth. only; Cent, ixorx: — gi {Sangermanens.T), Matth. 
only [the rest of N.T. being vulg. (ms. G)] ; Cent, vin or ix '.—gi {Sangerm. 11), a mixed text ; Cent, x : — 
h {Claromont.), Matth. only [other Gospels Vulg.j ; Cent, iv or v : — i ( Vindobonens.), fragments of Lc. 
and Mc ; Cent, v or vi (?) :—k {Bobiens.), fragments of Mc and Mt ; Cent, iv or v (?) -.—m (The 
"Speculum," a series of extracts from N.T. ; Cent, viii or ix) : — n {Fragm. Sangallensid), of the Four 
Gospels ; Cent, v or vi : — o (Mc), and p (Job.), smaller fragments (also Sangall.) ; Cent, vii or viii : — 
rj (Usser. ii), Matth. and part of Lc (the rest mixed vg) ; Cent, ix : — s {Fr. Ambrosiana), of Lc ; 
Cent. VI : — i {Fr. Bemensia), of Mc ; Cent, v or vi -.—v {Fr. Vindobon.), of Mc and Lc ; Cent, vii : — 
/* {Molingens.), larger fragments of Mt and Lc' (the rest mixed vg). 

Our citations of the Old Latin mss. have been made by reference to the printed texts, where 
such are accessible ; also, in case of r^ and ju, to the mss. 

Many remnants of Old Latin are also to be found in the writings of the earlier Latin Fathers, and 
in the early Latin version of Irenaeus. The citations of these, and of Greek authorities (manuscripts 
and Fathers), are, for the most part, borrowed from Tischendorf (as above), or from Sabatier, Biblior. 
Sacrr. Lat. Versiones. 

Section II. — Text of the Gospels : (/) St. Matthew's Gospel. 

In this and the three following Sections, the summary of readings cited from 
D is arranged under three chief heads : — Variants from the normal text in the 
way of (a) addition, {b) omission, (c) substitution (Subsections i, ii, iii). With 
each reading a brief digest is given of the evidence of the chief textual authorities, 
vulg. and vet. (and Greek where needful) — illustrative of the composite nature of 
our text. The instances in which it seems to represent the genuine Vulg. text 
more truly than the mss. of C/assis I (even A) are marked with * (those of them in 
which it stands apart also from the Celtic family, by**); those in which it adheres 
to the Old Lat. against the Vulg. in general, by f (where in so doing it stands 
alone or nearly so in its family, by tt); those in which it, alone or nearly so 
among Latin texts, is supported by Greek evidence, by J. 

Note that, in St. Matthew, D h'af, xiv. 32— xxi. 4; of the rest of the Celtic vg family, E ht'ai, 
XV. 1-28; also ept, ii. 8 — iv. 4: dimLQR are complete; also dur. — Of Irish vtt, n has lost not only 
i. I — XV. 16, but also xv. 31 — xvi. 3, and very many smaller portions (every page being more or less 
mutilated at top'or bottom, or both): r^ lacks i. 1-18, and xxvii. 58 to end; and has five other 
considerable gaps (noted below, each in loc.) : fx. is complete. 

The Clementine Vulg. of 1592 we cite as " cl "; its concurrence with W-W, we denote by "edd." 

' Many of these MSS have lost a page or pages (some, many pages) at the beginning ; thus, b begins 
i. II ; d,\. 12 ; e, xii. 49 ; ^2, xi. 16 ; h, iii. 15 ; /, ii. 15 ; r\, xv. 16. 

2 Neither d nor 8 is to be relied on as a witness independent of their gr, D and A. 

' For r\, rt, and /«., see above, pp. cxli, cxlii. Note (as regards rt and /«.) that even the.portions of their 
text which are reckoned as Vulg., abound with O.L. readings, and are cited below among vtt, throughout. 



{a) The following are noteworthy additions to the text of this Gospel in D, 
by interpolation or expansion : — 

i. 17 (at end). + omnes ergo generationes db abraam usque ad xpm generationes sunt xlii. This- 
recapitulation, unknown to Greek authorities, is found in the vett. he (and /a ?). Of the Celtic vulg. 
group, dim alone has it ; of other vulg., H®X. [Note that in this and the three following examples,. 
e ffi ri rj kiant.'] 

vi. 13. ne patiaris nos induct in temptationem (expansion of ne inducas nos ... of niost lat.). So 
(with slight variation) vtt c g^k it.; also vg (celt) dimR, and gat : — but no lat else, nor any gr. Appa- 
rently a gloss borrowed from Cypr., De Oral, Dom., vii, xxv (see also TertulL, De Fuga in Persec, c. ii). 

tt X. 29. sine patris uestri uoluntate qui est in caelis (expanded from sine patre uestro of most vg, 
and vtt dklfx.). So (but with variations) L; and vtt b ffi g^ {gi) h ; also (without qui . . . in caelis) 
dim (E), gat, ; and vtt a cfq, and 8 (against A) ; similarly Iren. (lat) II. xxvi. 2, Tert., Cypr. — Q writes 
sine patre uestro qui in caelis est, with some gr ; but most gr, aveu r. irarpos v/iSv only, without tov iv 
ovpavoh : none ins t^s /SouX^s. 

f xi. 3. ait illis, euntes dicite (explanatory, for ait illi, of A, &c., and most lat). So vtt 3 /i^ ; and dim 
(E, + illt)'K, gat, also J ; Q, ept (mg) read ait illis only ; (L) am ait illis and subst euntes dicite : — gr gives 
only clffev awTu [M, avToTs]. [The insertion of euntes dicite (against all gr) is a device to remove the 
difficulty which is created by the misreading in ver. 2, Svo for hid, of many gr, followed by most lat.J 

Some Other instances are worth pointing out ; as — 

t X. 14 (after de ciuitate) + ud de castello illo. So (of vg) dimLQ only, (of vtt) g^ fi.. So too, K 
alone of gr mss, with mss (of ^ group) 13, 346 (^ kuj/aijs). 

f xiv. 6 (after in medio) + triclinio. So most vtt (including /i [but jt! cancels, r^ r^ kiant'] ; of vg, 
dim EQR, also ept ; and H'®T : — but L om, with dur, and AY and all vg else ; and ^ / ; so too all gr. 
Rather a gloss than a textual variant. 

f xxi. 4 (before pro/etam) + essaiam. So vtt r, /«, ; similarly vg QR ; but dim, zachariam, as vtt 
a c h. Neither insertion has farther lat support, or any but the slightest gr authority. 

f xxii. 45 (after dauid) + in spiritu. The insertion of these words here (as well as in ver. 43, where 
all except r^ ins) is supported by most vtt {a h c d f fft g%h I r-^rih and /*), but /a' cancels : — but, of vg, 
only by dimEQ, ept (mg), gat, and (of Classis i) F. Some gr mss also (including D and A) ins kv 
TTvev/j.aTi, and many late mss. 

f xxvi. 50 (after ad quod uenisti) +fac. So (of vt) r^ /j. only; (of vg), dimQ only ; no gr, — all have 
e^' o. Again an example of an insertion textually worthless, but probably sound as an explanation.^ 

f xxvii. 49 (at end). + alius autem accepta lancea pupunguit latus eius tt exiit aqua et sanguis. This 
famous interpolation (apparently from St. John xix. 34) is found in no vt except /* [but /«' cancels] 
and rj: — not in n, nor in dur, or any vg of Classis i ; but only in vg(celt) dimELQR, ept (mg), gat, 
and a very few copies probably influenced by the Celtic text. The chief gr MSS attest it (^^BCL and 
others ; but not A or D). Thus it differs from all the preceding examples as being from a source not 
"Western." Its Latin attestation is Celtic — but not of the earliest, for neither dur (vg), nor ri (vt), 
admits it. 

For so far, it will be noted that our D but rarely inclines to the class of 
" Western" additions which are attested mainly by Greek D ; the Latin vt copies 
account for nearly all the "Western" element in its text, as against that of 
Classis I. 

[b) But besides the above, our MS. contains other insertions which are here 
set apart as being of less weight, because they are harmonistic. Such are — 

(a) viii. 24 + {erat autem illis uentus contrarius) : (/3) f f ix. 3 + {quis potest dimittere peccata nissi solus 

1 So R.V., "fi?o that for which thou art come": but A.V., '' wherefore art thou come?" as cl (with 
T, c, ad quid . . . ?— against the gr). 


deus) : (7) x. 12 + {dicenUs pax huic domui) : (8) f xiv. 2 + {quern ego decollam) : («) f xiv. 3 + {/ilippi, 
dSt&L fratris sui). Four of these (aj8 8 «) are borrowed from St. Mark (vi. 48 ; ii. 7 ; vi. 16, 17), the 
third (y) from St. Luke (x. 5). In this place (y) all vg (celt) concur, and also many other vg (and cl), 
including (of Ciassts i) FYZ (but not A, nor dur) ; likewise most vtt ; and of the gr not only D, but 
KL, and many mss. In the other four places there is less support from vg (none from dur, or 
■Classi's i), while of vg(celt), dim alone is with our ms in all ; none of the others agrees in (;8) ; EQR 
agree in (a) (8) (e) ; L in (a). Of the Irish vtt, n r, hiant in all these places ; /* ins in four of these 
(a y 8 e),— but /a' cancels in (y). In (a), ^a /a are the only vtt supporters, with but few gr mss. In (/?), 
ahl only of vtt, no gr ins : in (8) many vtt, but of gr only D and some mss : in («), on the other hand, 
while the vtt are divided, no gr except D om the name. 

Note that here too, in this class of interpolations, our D agrees with gr D but rarely, and never 
■except in company with many vtt, — the one instance being (8) xiv. 2. 

None of the variations in this Subsection, except (y), is found in cl, and none 
has been adopted by W-W. 


{a) Many omissions are to be noticed in our text that are obviously due 
to homoeoteleuton ; e.g., it omits — 

(a) V. 19 {qui autem fecerit in regno caelorum) : (/S) vii. 17 {mala autem facii) : 

(y) X. 33 {qui auiem negauerit coram pat re meo qui est in caelis) : (8) xii. 40 {sic erit Hi diebus 

et Hi noctibus). Of these omissions, one (a) occurs in no other of our lat (except rj), but in two gr mss 
(XD) — in them, no doubt, similarly caused ; in (/8) dim and L alone concur ; in (8), ept (txt) ; but 
in (y) our Ms stands alone.' 

{b) Intentional omissions are rare ; but two are notable : — 

i. 6 — {ex ea quaefuit Uriae). Our MS is alone in suppressing this blot on the Messianic pedigree. 

xxiv. ^(t — (neque filius). All vg (celt), dur, and AY with all other vg except BJOX, and edd, 
agree in omitting these words. — In inserting them, BJOX are supported by the gr SBD, and four 
-mss ; with n and most vtt ; but gig^l r^h ft, om ; with most gr. 

{c) Other examples, rather to be accounted "non-interpolations" than 
omissions, are — 

* X. 14 (at end) — in testimonium eorum. D with dur, also dimELQR, ept, Z, CT, and most other 
vg, om (and so edd), with all gr and most vtt (including /*). But AY, FM, and others, ins ; also mg 
of R {illorum), and ^1 h {illis) [ti r,, hiant\ ins, [interpolation from Mc. vi. 11, or Lc. ix. 5]. 

xxiii. 14 — (whole ver.) uae nobis .... qui comeditis .... longa orantes .... iudicium. D, and dur, 
dimEL, gat, with AY and most vg, om (and so W-W) : while QR ins, also F and T, and (differently 
placed) © and H (mg) ; also (with variations; vtt b cfff^ h /, and ^i r^ 8 (and so cl). Most later gr mss 
(incl. A), and mss, ins [interpolation from Mc. xii. 14, or Lc. xx. 47] ; but gr D, with KBLZ, and 
some mss, om, followed by vtt a </ « ffx g\ g% h [? om vv. 13-28. 

xxiv. 42 (at end) — duo in lecto .... unus relinquetur. Again, D om, with dur, and dim LQ, 
also AY and most other vg; and so edd. But ER, gat, also Z, B®OTX, etc., support the interpola- 
tion [see Lc. xvii. 34] ; as also most vtt {abed {e)fffiff^ h q [but/'i_^2 om ver. 41]), with D alone of gr : 
while all other gr, with vtt ^1 g^ I ri r^ 8 ft, om. 

xxvii. 28. (after exuentes eum), — induerunt {eum'\ tunicam purpuream, et). D, with dimLR, joins 
•dur, A, and nearly all vg else (and edd), also vtt ffi gi gt I, in excluding this interpolation [from 
Joh. xix. 2]. But (with variations) EQ, ept (mg), and gat, ins, with Y, and vtt ab c dfff^ h {q) rj /j. 
[/if om, e r, Aiant'] : — but of gr mss, D alone, and of mss, 157. So also Orig. (lat), in loc. 

1 The omission of ubi nan s^arsisit (xxv. 24) is apparently casual (at foot of a column). The scribe 
has attempted to make room for it at head of next column, but has not carried out the insertion. But r^ also 
-om, with the preceding words et congregas. 


xxvii. 32 (after simonem) — uenientem ohuiam sibi. D here parting from its family — of which all else 
(dimELQR, and ept (mg), gat) admit (with slight variation) this interpolation [suggested by Lc. xxiii. 
26] — om with dur, AY and nearly all vg else (so edd), zxid/ffigi I q. — But Y'Z, B, and a few others, 
ms ; as also vtt a b c ff^ g^ h, and ri r^ ix [^fi! cancels] ; again with D alone of gr (ew aTrai/njcrtv a-uroC). 

*ib. 35 (at end)— ut tnpleretur miserunt soriem. D, following dur, with dimLR, and ept 

(txt), CT and others, also vtt d/ffiffig^l, rejects this second interpolation (see xxvii. 28 above) from 
Joh. (xix. 24) ; and so W-W : — but in this case opposed by a large majority of vg, including AYZ, and 
(of vg (celt)) EQ, ept (mg), which ins (and so cl), with vtt a b c g^ h g rif^B jji, [but fif cancels]. Yet 
it rests on scanty gr authority — only A of MSS, and a few mss. 

Another interpolation found in gr D (alone of gr), and (more or less fully) in various forms in 
most vtt {abed eff^ff^ {gi g^) h m (part) n n r^, but not flqi^, is a long passage subjoined to xx. 28 

[founded on Lc. xiv. 8-10], beginning uos autem guaerilis de modico crescere This passage 

appears in no vg (celt), and (of the other vg) only in ®0 and mg of H ; but the evidence of D is here 
lacking (see note, p. cxlv, above). 

It will be perceived that in all the above instances (except the first) the 
insertions which our ms. excludes have large support from lat vtt (including 
frequently the Irish texts r-^ r^ fi). Moreover, in every instance, one or two, or 
more, of vg (celt) mss. admit these insertions ; as also some mss. of Chassis I — even 
(in two cases) A itself; but in no case dur. Our ms., therefore, has been edited 
with more than usual textual care in avoiding interpolation, and adhering to 
the standard maintained by dur, which proves to be, in this respect, stricter 
than A. Yet, of the three interpolations in Mt. xxvii derived from Joh. xix (2, 
24, 34), while our ms. (as above) avoids two (xxvii. 28 and 35), it accepts (against 
dur) the third {id. 49), as we have seen in preceding Subsection — of which the 
Latin attestation is Celtic. — Note also that, in three of the five places above 
cited in (c) our D, with other Celtic vg (xxiv. 42, xxvii. 28), and in one place 
(xxvii. 32), alone, rejects interpolations peculiar to gr D. 


[a) Of other variations in D, in the way of substitution, some are in the choice 

between renderings merely — 

As t (vi. 11) cotidianum (with dimEL, and mg of ept, CT, and all vtt (except S /a [_^2 ^1. 's, hiant], 
with Tert,, Cypr., Ambr., Aug. : for supersubstantialem (of dur, Q, A(Y), (F)MZ, and nearly all else ; 
also edd); gr, eirtowiov: — f (i'i. 16) exterminant (with L, also dur, AYFMZ', and most vg, nearly all 
vtt (including m and fi) ; and so cl) ; for demoliuntur (of dimER, ept, gat, Z [Q joins both render- 
ings], and a few other vg, ^2 (and /i') ; and so W-W, q.v.)\ gr, a.^avit,ov(Ti.v : — f (xiii. 19) malignus (with 
dimLQR, and (of vtt) d g^hr^f)), Cypr., Lucif. ; for malus {oi dur, AY, and all else, and edd); gr, 6 
7rovrip6<s : — t (xxv. 34) ab origine (ER, c dff^ r^ 8 [/*, ab initio^) for a constituHone (of dur, LQ, AY, and 
all vt and vg else, and edd) ; gr, L-rto KaTojSoXijs : — t (xxvii. 65) milifes) with dimLQR, gat ; h n [r^ de/."] 
fi) ; for custodiam (nearly all vg else, ffig^lB and jj.') ; gr, KovtTTmUav, but other vg, and most vtt 
{abcd/ff-tg^q), custodes, with gr D, ^vXaKa-i. — With these may be reckoned the merely grammatical 
variant f (xii. 18), bene conplacuit anima mea (with dimELQR,' graecizing as a b gz A q ft. [r ^rt hianf] ; 
after gr, -qihoKiquiv rj i/'vx'? /nou) — for bene \con\placuit animae meae of the rest, dur included. 

[b) Other divergences of D, none of them received by cl or by W-W, which 

affect the substance as well as the expression, are — 

f viii. 10. apud nullum inueni. So also dimL, gat; and ju, also {in nullo) a g^k {q, in nullum), 
after gr B and some mss (irap' ouScVt . . .) : for non inueni oi all else (gr, ovSe . . .). 

' In this rendering W-W see evidence that the scribes of vg hib corrected their text after the Greek. 
But it is surely more probable that they merely followed the Latin vtt. 


xxi. 32. in nomine meo. D alone : — for in oraiione of all else, vg and vtt (and so all gr). [Our 
scribe has here inadvertently transferred the words of Job. xiv. 13, xv. 16, xvi. 23. J 

Xib, 38. haheamus. So also E: — for habebimus, of nearly all vg else (and edd), and vtt alcfg^ 
h I riS, Iren. (lat), Lcf. ; and similarly, nosim erit hereditas, R, and e. — Of other vtt, d alone has 
habeamus, after the gr, [KaTa](r;(a)/«ei' ;' _^i m {svcaiXaxXy), possideamus, q, optineamus: \m.iffir2\i, habemus. 

t ib. 42. a domino fadus est isiud hoc est mirabile. So D, with dur (but cm hoc), dimLQR, rj ; and 
so (as to /actus) most vtt, but they vary otherwise {b h q, iste et ; c ff^ff^, hie [et'\ ; /a, iste hoc ; ae, am 
pron.) : — for a domino factum est istud, et est mirabile of AY and nearly all vg else, and edd ; also/^i 
^2 / \r\ hiai'\. All gr, irapa. Kvpit^ eyeVero avrq [scil., KeipaXrj — so d, facta est haec'\ koX Icttiv Qa,v\xa.(nr\.'^ 

xxvii. 66. et discesserunt. D subst these words for cum custodibus of all else (gr, ft,era. t^s Kouo-TwStas, 
— but D, yx€Ta T. <^vA.a/co)v) ; EQR subjoin them ; ^i. prefixes (but R' and \i! cancel). {/% def xxvii. 58 to 

xxviii. 7. sicut dixit. So D, with Q and/"; and so two gr mss (126, 472), xa^cis dTnv: — but all 
lat else (except dur, which am), ecce \_prae~\dixi, with all gr else, 180^ elirov [apparently from Mc. xvi. 7]. 

Subsection iv.— DOUBLET READINGS. 

A few instances of "doublets" (dittographs or conflate readings) occur, 
such as : — 

iii. 8. D (alone) has facite ergo frudum dignum poenitentiae facite autem frudum dignum poenitentiae — 
unaccountably ; for the former part (with ergo) is found in all other vg, and in vtt ; while the latter 
(with autem) is unsupported. All gr have ovi'. 

xxii. 34. With dimL (also /■/«.) D has conuenerunt in unum ad eum (and so Q, conu. in unum aduersus 
eum). This reading combines that of all vg else, and of vtt [a r^ hiant'] ffi gigi I q 8, conu. in unum, 
with that of the other vtt, b c d {e) ff^, conu. ad eum (h r,, aduersus eum). The first represents the usual 
gr {hrX TO avTo) ; the others, the reading of gr D, iir' avrov. 

xxiv. 42. (before dns) qua die uel qua hora. So D, with dimEQR and ept (mg), and vtt r^ r^ /j, ; 
also {transp) gat, e. But dur, AY, and other vg (and so edd), with most vtt (a h c ff^ gigi h I q), qua 
hora only (irota uSp^, gr L, &c., and most mss.) : — again, vtt d f ff^ 8, qua die only, with gr XBDA, 
and (of the <^ group) 13, 69, 124. (L (vg) writes qua only, without noun.) 

In some places the scribe has himself corrected such doublets ; as — 

viii. 20. nidos tabernacula. Here the expuncted nidos is read by cl with dim, AY, M, C, and most 
vg and 8 ; tabernacula, by dur, L, ept, and Z (and so W-W), and by I g^: — EQ, gat, and T, read nidos 
ubi requiescant, as also a b cff^gi h q (//,, nidos componunt [defff^r^ r% hiant']); R (with FJ), tabernacula 
ubi req. Both words represent the undisputed gr, KaTacr/ciyvaJcrcis, as does k (deuorsoria). See W-W's 
note in loc. 

ib. 2Q. perdere nos ante tempus ante tempus torquere nos. Only gat and C (vg), give perdere. It is 
remarkable that X here reads diroXecrat (for /Sao-ovtVat, of all else) ; gr and vg alike probably borrowing 
from Mc. i. 24]. 

Many like cases occur, as (vii. 28) sermones hos uerba haec ; xxiv. 2. ait illis dixit illis. 

The mutum et sordum f (ix. 32) of D, dim, and all vg celt, and ept (mg), also abcfg^g^hqfi., 
looks like a doublet. A and all vg else, including dur and edd, have mutum only, and so the other 
vtt_^i ^ / 8; but d, surdum only. The gr, kw<^6v, may mean either or both. Probably the vt translators 
took it to mean " deaf and dumb." Yet note that where kisi^. recurs below (xii. 22), D and dimEL, 
and gat, with most vtt {a c dffft gi gn I q 8 fi) [^i r^ hiant], and vg in general (dur with AY, &c.) 
render by mutus ; but Q and R as here, and so also b ff-^h; while k gives surdus. 

None of these doublets has been admitted into any printed text. 

' This instance might, more plausibly than that of xii. 8 (note ' to last page), be advanced as a correc- 
tion of a vg (celt) text after the gr. But the correction may well have been made without reference to the 
gr, to correspond with the mood of occidamus preceding. 

* Perhaps hoc may be an alternative for istud, retained in text, so as to make a " doublet " rendering. 



Section III. — Text of Gospels: (//) St. Mark's Gospel. 

The Vulgate text of St. Mark, as exhibited by the Celtic group, presents fewer 
features of interest than that of St. Matthew, or of either of the two following 
Gospels. Moreover, the variations which occur in it, especially in our ms., are 
in many cases hardly worth recording, being due to carelessness or misunder- 
standing.^ Whether this inferiority is due to some temporary cause affecting the 
scribe, or to the defectiveness of his exemplar of this Gospel, cannot now be 
determined. The subjoined summaries of examples (not selected with any 
purpose of disparagement) give a fair idea of the facts of the case. 

In this Gospel, E Mat, vi. 56 to end ; Q Mat, xiv. 32-42 ; dim hial, ii. 5 — iii. 24. DLR are 
complete ; also dur. Of vtt., n Mat, xiv. 58 — xv. 8 ; xv. 29 to end ; besides very frequent small gaps : 
Vt Mat, iii. 23 — iv. 19 ; v. 31 — vi. 13 ; xv. 17-41 : \>. is complete. In i, tiie Gospel begins ii. 17 ; in k, 
viii. 8 ; in «, vii. 13. Of ^, there survive after vi. 9, but a few broken fragments (of chh. xii, xiii). 


The following are notable insertions of D, in the text of this Gospel : — 

fiii. IS (at end). + «/ ut circumeuntes praedicarent aeuanguelium. So ELQ [dim Mat'l, with gat 
and T ; also v\X a c e g^ : — but no vg else (nor edd) ; not n r^ /*, nor other vt ; and no gr. 

t vi. 20. (after audita), + quod . . . faciehat, with dur as well as dimLQ, and ept; also gt q r^ fi. {b, 
quia; c, facere for quod /aciebat). This insertion gives a new meaning (unauthorized by the gr) to the 
reading, which all lat (vg and vt) here follow {/aciebat), eTrotci (of gr ACDA, &c.), instead of ^Tropet (of 
XBL). But D spoils it by reading (with E only) the next word multo, for multa {troXKa) of the rest. 

*ib. 31 (before nee), + et. So D [corr. W-W here], with dimELQR, also dur, and Z, CT, BO, 
4fec. (so too edd) ; and most vtt {bcdfffi iq r^S /x) : — against AY, ept, H®, also a I r^, which cm. All 
gr, KOL ovSe. 

f vii. 7 (before praecepta), + et. So dimLQR [E de/., vi. 56 to end of Gospel] and ept ; also dur, 
with CT and most others, and cl, with a cfi r^ {mandata) yu, : — but AY, Z, and some, om (as W-W) ; 
also b dffi Iq, with gr [ri Mat ; S writes in praecepta ; A, cf . ra . \jx,a.Ta\. 

■f X. 40 (after dare) + uobis. So dimLQR, also dur, CT, and most (so cl) ; and cflr\ r^ (S) ji* 
(^, nobis): — but AY, with MZ, ®, om. ; and so W-W ; with a b d ff^ i q, and all gr (A incl.).' 

xi. 12 (before essuritt), + cum duodecim. So dur, also dimQ, and ept, with /<., and rj {cum "x* 
essuriuit ii [where ii is numeral]) : — against all else, vg, vt, and gr. 

xiii. 6 (after ego sum), + xps. So Q, ept, gat, also H0 ; with vtt bcg^l, and a few gr (including all 
mss of 4> group) : — but all vg else om ; also most vtt (incl. ;-2 fx. [/i Mat"]). [Perhaps from Mt. xxiv. 5.J 
ib. 32 (after filius), + hominis. So LQ, and ept : else unattested by lat or gr. 

Harmonistic additions, or amplifications, also occur, such as — 

f xii. 14 (before licet) + die ergo nobis. So also dimLQ, gat, T, and vtt ab c dff^g^i qvx, to like 
effect k (not Ir^h fj, [ef Mant'\ ) ; with (of gr) CD, and a few. {Cp. Mt. xxii. 17.] 

xiii. 18 (after ^a[«]/) ^ fuga ueslra uel sabbato. So also QR {Y^fuga uestra only, and so r^j ; dim, 
uel sabbato only, ept (txt), gat, gzkn' ; and gr L, &c. (not r^ /j,, nor other vt, vg, or gr). [Both inter- 
polated from Mt.] 

XV. 32. Si xps rex israel est. D alone ins jz'and est (no gr supports). [See Mt. xxvii. 42. p. 42.] 
[None of these three additions appears in cl or W-W.] 

• Note especially the many and large omissions in chh. ix, x, recorded in Subsect. 11, infr. (last 

' The scribe of 8 writes uohis by mistake over the latter half of i-uwv v/ioiv (of gr A) preceding. 


In common with all vg, and most extant vtt {cfft lnri8i/,\_ab efiq rj hianf], and most gr, our text 
ins XV. 28 {el inpleta est scriptura . . . ; [others, adimpl.']), which verse gr i^ABCD om, followed by d k. 
[It seems to be borrowed from Lc. xxii. 37.] And again, with all vg, vtt [incl. rj /x, — r^ hiat'] except 
k, and most gr (not i^B), it retains xvi. 9-20. But these may be reckoned as instances of " non- 
omission" rather than of interpolation. 

Under this head, the most remarkable examples are — 

tt iv. 34 (at end), — et adicieiur nobis. D om, with G, and gat ; so too, bdelr^ix, (not r,), after 
gr DG and very few mss. 

ib. 36. D alone writes ita ui in naui erant cum illo, omitting erat (or erant, as AY, M, O, ept mrt, 
and IqVi only, — no gr), after ut, and et aliae naues after in naui, — so as completely to alter the purport 
of the passage, and to efface an interesting detail found in all gr. Probably our scribe had before him 
the reading ita ut in naui erant et aliae naues erant cum illo, and thus the omission was due to homceotel. 
{erant .... erant). 

X ix. 48. Nearly all vg (dimLQR, dur, and AY, &c.) write (with small variations) omnis enim igne 
salietur et omnis uictima \_sak'] salietur; and so edd. But our D om the latter member of the sentence, 
with 8, after gr i^BLA, &c. : — while T, and (with variations) ab c dff^ i [^], after gr D, om the former 
member, and retain the latter. The other v% / gi I q r^ iJ.[e n hianf], after gr AC, &c., retain both, in 
some form. — On the one hand, it may be suspected that the omission (of one or other member) is 
due to homoeoteleuton ; on the other, that the second member is a gloss [perhaps from Levit. ii. 13]. 
Or again, it is possible that the longer reading is a " doublet." 

X. 21. — dilexit eum et. So likewise L, and X, but apparently no vt [rj hiat]. Here Z appears in 
mg, noting the defect (see a like instance, x. i). 

xii. 32 (after unus est), — deus. So L ; and dur, with AY, F, and most (and so W-W) ; also vtt 
I r^S [x; after gr i^ABLA, &c. : — but dimQR, ept (mg), mrt, GT, and a few more vg (so cl), and most 
vtt {a b c dffz i q n \_e f hiani] ), ins ; with gr DE, &c. [Note that our MS, nearly alone, om deus also 
in ver. 29 (before unus)!\ 

\\ xiii. 34 (after homo), — qui; with dur, and ept ; and so too vtt a c d/fft ga kiqr^S : — but all vg 
else ins (and edd) ; and also I ij.[b ri hianf]. All gr om os, but use participle (d<^£is) = qui reliquit, 
or (as e) relinquens. 

Some other omissions, evidently due to homceotel., are to be found, as — 

vii. 25 (after mulier), ending mulier (26) ; — ix. 19 (after quandiu), ending quandiu (so ju.) : — ih. 22 
(after si quid potes), ending si potes (23): — ib. 37 (after reciperit), ending susceperit: — ib. 45, 46 (after 
extinguitur (44)), ending extinguitur (46) : — x. 43 (after quicumque uoluerit), ending quicumque uoluerit 
(44) (so ri): xii. 29 (after mandatum (28)), ending mandatum est. 

All these (except as above, ix. 19, x. 43, 44) are unsupported by other authority. 


Under this head there are more numerous instances ; thus, D reads — 

i. 24 (after scio [/«]), quia sis. So dur, also LQ, ept', and r^: — for qui sis (gr, rts ei) of E (R, quis 
sis) ept (mg) [M, qui scis], Z, CT, and most vg (so edd) ; also vtt b cde/ff^ gilS' fj. [a ir^ hiant] : — but 
dimR', AY, ept (txt), and others, and 8, quis es ; q, qui es. 

f vi. 3. fabri filius et mariae. So dimELQR, ept, likewise dur, BG®T, &c., and vtt a i f g^ i n /*, 
and e (but om et, as also 8, against A) [rj Mat] ; with some gr mss, including (of <^ group) 1 3, 69. 
(o T. TEKTovos vios KOI fiopi'os) I — but AY, MZ, C, and most vg (and edd), and vtt dfff^lq, with all 
gr MSS and most mss (o tcktwi' 6 uEos t^s ft.), faber filius mariae. 

ib. ig. erodis. So (but with initial h) EQR (not dim L), ept', gat, F; and^a^jr2 (not /», 
[n hiat]) : — for herodias of AY and most vg (and edd), and most vtt, with all gr. 

T 2 


vi. 21. natalis sui. So dimELQR, with dur, and AY, CT, most vg, and cl ; also viifftlqn 
rj {natis) 8 p. (similarly c i) : — but W-W read naiali suo, which is closer to the gr (rots ycvea-iois avrov, 
so all, not excepting A), with ZV and a few others, also add. 

fix. 17. inmundum. So dur, dimLQR, ept, gat; and vtt ah qr,,f>. :— for mututn of AY and all 
vg else, and edd ; and vtt dfff^ k l{ri, mudum) 8 (c t write both words). All gr, a\a\ov. 

X. IS (before non reciperit), quisque.^ So LQR, also ept; with dur, and A, M, CT ; also b d fi. 
[rz om sentence] ; all gr, os av :— but YZ and most vg, and edd, with vtt ^2 / 8, quisquis ; dim, afk q, 
quicumque [i hiaf] ; G, c, qui, [ti quisq . . . .j. Note that a (also n) writes quisque for os av [lav], viii. 
3S> 38. 

f t z'i5. 41. indignati sunt. So gat; and g^ q, after gr A and ms i (^yavaKnytrav) : — for coeperunt 
indignari of all else, vtt (inch n rj iC) with variations, and vg ; after gr (•^pfavTo dyava/cTeiv). 

X xi. 32. «■ dicamus. So D alone : LQ, and ept, with dur, MZ, CT, and most vg, also k {set for «') 
ra 8, si dicemus (and so W-W) ; OX, c, si dicimm : — but dimR, with AY, and a few, and vtt a b d/ff^ i I q ft. 
[ri hiat\ si dixerimus (so cl); gr dXAa [D, ka.v'ymm\i.(.v . 

f ib. ib. timemus. So dimLQR, ept, with dur, G, mrt, and a b c d/ff^ gt i q r-^Vi ft. (and so cl) ; 
with gr D, and the mss of <^ group, ^oy8ou/,t£^a[-oC/,i£i'] : — but AY and all vg else, and /, timebant; 
k, metuebant, (icjio^ovvTo, nearly all gr) ; and so W-W. 

f ib. 33. dixerunt. So dimLQR, ept, mrt, with dur, Z, CT, and many others, and vtt a 3 c d/ikln 
[/i }] : — but AY, M, and some vg (and edd), and vtt q 8, dicunt (with all gr) ; ff^ has dicentes [/-j hiai]. 

*f xii. 14. uiam dei. So dimLQR, ept, with dur, Z, T, and most (so edd), also vtt a b cffi ilqr^ 8 fi 
[e hiat, — also/, xii. 5 — xiii. 32], with all gr : — but AY, M, C, H®0, vtt k r„ domini' (also d, against 

xiii. 19. tribulationis. So D, with dim, ept, gat, mrt, and AY, T, and others; also vtt c ff.^ ilZ 
(not A or any gr) : — but dur, LQR, with MZ, C, and others, tribulationes (so edd), also vtt abdknq 
Ti r^ ft, [_e hiat] ; with gr D and few mss {6\i>f/€t<i) ; most gr, O^lfis. 

f xiv. 3 (after nardi) pystici. So D alone; but dim, G {pm nardi), T, gat, and vtt d/g^ irt, pistici; 
(dur, piscati; k, piscicae; L om); all gr, irio-Tiic^s : — AY and the other vg, spicati (and so edd), with 
vtt c ff% I q ri^/t, ?] (8 writes spicati uel pistici ; a subst optimi). [e def. xiii. 36 to end.] 

*f ib. 7. kabebitis [bis]. So dimLQ, ept, gat, with dur, CT, and a few other vg, and gt q rt ft. (and 
so edd): — but R, with AY, Z, and a few more, and vtt dffi iklS, habetis \bis] (all gr, ex*")- The 
other vg and vtt change (in each instance) from present to future, or vice versa, 

f f XV. I. uinctum. So ept, mrt, and O; and vtt a c d ff^q r^ ft.: — A.Y and nearly all else (and 
edd), also / 8, uincientes (dur, LQ, uincenies ; dim, uenientes ; ft!, uinci{en)tes [b ri hiant] ; gr, hrfo-avrei). 

ib. 30. faciet semet. So ept (txt) : all e\s&, fac te\_met] (with gr) ; [fi hiat, xv. 17-41]. 

ib. 39 (after centorio), et qui ex aduerso erant. So ept (txt) ; L, ept (mg), stabant for erant : — all 
else (without et), qui ex aduerso stabat ; as all gr. 

In these latter chapters, xiv— xvi, a few variants appear in the margin, as 
follows : — 

(a) xiv. 38 (after caro), autem. So f D {txt), with dim, ept, mrt, and a few other vg [Q hiat], and 
most vtt' {be d/ffiklqri [r. Mat]): — but {mg) with AY, and nearly all vg else, wen; (and so edd); 
also a \_ft, om] ; L, uero autem ; dur om, but interl. uero ; gr, -t] Sc crapf. 

{P) ib. 48. uenistis. ff D {txt), with vtt a/ff^ k (but no other vg) : — but {mg), with all vg except D 
(and so edd), and vtt cdlqr^^, existis; as all gr, e^ijXfleTc [zVi ;u, hiant]. 

(y) ib. ib. (after gladiis), et fustibus. f f D {txt), with L, and X ; and vtt a c d/ff^ kq[b ri hiant] : — 
but {mg) with all vg else, and / r^ ft,, et lignis ; and so edd ; gr, koX ivXwv. [See below (Subsect. iv), 
on the doublet, xiv. 43.] 

' Used provincially for quicumque ; as by Plautus, and later African writers. See W-W, in loco. 
2 Note that elsewhere our MS is apt to substitute dn3 for ds. [corr. the note of W-W here], 
2 See Buchanan, in J. T. S., vol. x, pp. 122-4, for h in this place : it def., xiv. 42 to end. (Bianchini's 
text ends xiii. 24.) 


(8) XV. 46. in petra. ft ^ {^xf)> with 0, and vtt c dff^ g^ k {in petram) lq[ab efin hianf\, also (of 
gr) the ^ group {Iv rg ireVp^i : — but {mg), with all other vg, and vtt nnS/x, de petra, after all gr else 
(including D, against d) Ik [t^s] irsVpas ; and so edd. \^f def., xiv. 70, and n xv. 29, to end.] 

(e) xvi. 3. reuoluet. D (/;»:/), with dim, also A7, M, C, B, &c. (and so edd) ; also vtt c fft k n B, 
with all gr: — but {mg) nmluit, with dur, LQR, ept, Z, T, and many vg, also vtt dlqr%\L\ but (of gr) 
neither D nor any other. 

It is to be observed that in all these instances, except the last (e), our ms. has 
in txt a reading mainly — in case of (^) solely — attested by vt evidence ; in mg, 
that of vg. In this part of the text, therefore, the corrector is apparently revising 
the mixed text by the aid of an approximately pure Vulg. text, in order to 
conform it thereto. In instance (e) alone, the authorities are so divided (both 
vg and vt) between the rival readings, that no inference can be drawn. 

In the following examples (of non-corruption rather than of substitution), 
D has retained the true reading, against others (mostly A) which have lost it : — 

*-(-viii. 27. in castella. So D, with dur, dim, nearly all vg (so edd); also cfklr^Zix.: — AY, X', 
alone, in castello, with no gr (all els rets Kii/Aas, except gr D, which om, and after it vtt a h dff^ iq ri). 

id. 38. confussus. So dimLR, also {confusus) ept (txt), AY, FMZ, C, G, and most vg (and so 
edd); likewise most vtt {abc/ffiinqh ftf): — but Q, ept (mg), mrt, T, and a few (even dur), with d 
(against gr D) ^ / 1^ r^ /t, confessus, — against gr, en-aio-xw^jj, or (D) — Orjo-erai. [But D errs in next 
sentence, — -f ib. ib. confundet. So dur, and dim(L)QR, ept, G, also a b cfff^ y n 8 (r^, confidet ; fi., non 
eon/undet) : — AMZ, C, mrt, and the rest (with variations, as Y, confideiur), confundelur (and so edd), 
with d i k n (but /, confitetur) ; after gr {hra.vjyyvQ-i\<y(.ra.C)\. 

*ix. 6 (after eranf), enim, with dur, dim, and nearly all vg (so edd); also all gr, ya/a ; and so 
(apparently) all vtt (incl. n r-n /a) : — AX alone (not Y) autem. 

ib. 35. quern ut conplexus esset. So (or compl.) ept, and AY, M, H®0 (also W-W), and r^ : — but 
Q, mrt, Z and many (also cl), with vtt he dffiilq (and a, with deviations), cum for ut; dur, L, quern 
cum plexus esset (similarly R, /a, quern conplexus) : — dim, f k, et com{n)pkxus ilium ; [r^ Mat, 8 mis- 

* x. 48. clamabat. So dur, dimLQR, Y, and all other vg (except AH, which read clamauit), and 
edd ; also apparently all vtt (incl. r^ /x. {/i Mat']); even d, though gr D has iKpa^iv for (Kpa^iv of all else. 

Subsection iv.— DOUBLETS. 

In this Gospel the examples are not many. 

iv. 10. xii cum xii. Here dim£, with ept, mrt, Z, CT, and several vg, read duodecim only (and 
so cl), also /8; but LQR, with dur, and AY, M, and several others, and/", cum duodecim only, with 
most gr {iTvv Tois hioBtKo) ; so W-W. D combines these two readings (writing Z in mg.). Most vtt 
(a b c dffi i q r^ {/i? ) [r^ hiat']), om both, and read discipuli eius (or sui) with gr D and <^ group. 

ib. 26. St homo facial sementem iaceat. Here ept, and OZ, have si facial homo (similarly r^) ; all 
else iaciat {iacet, iaceat, ieciat), or iactat {iactet, iectet) before, or after, homo; others, mittat. D, by 
retaining both verbs, produces the above dittograph. 

xiv. 24. qui pro multis uobis effundetur {ox — itur). Here all lat read /ro multis (gr, virlp TroXXSi'), 
■except ept (txt) and ?2 (/x }), which substitute pro uobis. Here again D combines two readings. 

ib. 43. et fustihus et lignis (gr, koX fvXcov). Here LQ, with GX, after vtt a c dfff^ kq r^ [be htant~\, 
render the gr by \fusiibus ; all vg else (and / rj /a) by lignis. Thus the reading of D is dittograph 
— (vt + vg). [Compare (7) of the marginal variants recorded in preceding Subsection.] 

XV. 21. praetereuntem quempiam quendam (gr, irapayovTa tcvol [D om.']). AY and most vg, and /, 
give quempiam ; but dur, dimQR, and ept (mg), with CT and a few more, also vtt ckB iJi,[ab efiqr-^ r-i 
Aiant'], f quendam. Others of the few vtt here forthcoming om, as dffi (after gr D).— Again a ditto- 
graph— (vg + vt). 


Section IV.— Text of Gospels: (///) St. Luke's Gospel. 

The characteristic features of the "Western" type of text, which the Old 
Latin Versions exhibit in a degree more strongly marked in this Gospel than in 
any of the others, give us in this Section a great number of Old Latin readings 
to examine, — divergences from what may be broadly regarded as the normal 
Greek type, — in the form chiefly of additions, but not seldom also of omissions. 
And these have naturally left their marks on the Vulgate text, especially on that 
of the Mss. of the Celtic group. The following summaries of examples will serve 
as evidence by which to judge of the extent to which that text, as presented by 
our MS. and its fellows, is affected by the deviations of the Old Latin Versions 
and of their Greek supporter, Cod. Bezae. 

Note that dim Mat, xiv. i8 — xv. 18 ; E Mat, i. i-vii. 24 ; L def., iii. 9 to end ; Q Mat, xii. 6-18 ; 
R hiat, iv. 29-viii. 38, x. 20-38, xv. 13-xvi. 25. But D is complete ; as also dur. Of the Old Latin, 
z' begins x. 6 ; r, has frequent gaps throughout; n Mat, i. 1-13, ii. is-iii- 8, vi. 39-vii. 11, xi. S4-xii. 45, 
xiv. 18-XV. 25, xvi. 15-xvii. 7, xix. 10-38, xxii. 36-59, xxiii. 14 to end; /^ is complete. 


(i) It may safely be affirmed that, of the larger insertions which notably dis- 
tinguish the text of this Gospel as presented by the " Western" authorities — the 
Old Latin and the Greek D (Cod. Bezae), very few have passed into the text of 
our MS., or of the Celtic group in general. Of such "Western" additions as it 
retains, hardly any one extends beyond a word or two. This, however, is not so 
in case of harmonistic interpolations which abound in Old Latin texts and are not 
rare in Cod. Bezae ; of such our ms. and its family exhibit no small number. 
From the subjoined list additions of this sort have been excluded for the most 
part ; and it is in the main confined to examples of insertions which appear to be 
attested by evidence sufficient to entitle them to record, or which are illustrative 
of the relations of the Latin texts inter se, or to the Greek. 

Examples in D of such insertions, are — 

tfii- 48 (after dolentes), + et tristes; with L, G, gat, (no vg else); also vtt qr-^ [not /x 
[rs Mat~^ ; of gr, D only (oSuvw/itvot koX Xmovikevoi). 

tf V. 14 (before in testimonium), + ut sit. D sol (vg) ; but yti a b c d efft q n (not rj) /x, ins ; of gr, 
D only {Iva r/v [corr, ^]). 

*f ix. 41 (after adduc), + huc. So dur, dimQ, and most vg (and edd), also nearly all vtt (incl. r^ fx,; 
but a e, hoc ; fi, ad me) : — against R, AY, M, P, which om. All gr ins {Trpocrdyaye cSSe), except D 
(which d follows). A reads m8e, which 8 renders quo autem {om hue), as if <S Se. [Note that the 
omission of hue, in d, A, &c., is apparently due to the last syllable of adduc immediately preceding (so 
R writes adhnc, without hue; r^, adhuc hue), and therefore is an error of the lat text. Hence it seems 
reasonable to surmise that gr D at this point may have been conformed to the lat.] 

* ib. 60 (after dixitque), + ei, D with most vg (dur as well as dimQR, and edd) ; also vtt b/l £ n M 
[aedr^ 8, illi; e, illis \_ffi i Man!]), and all gr (avTw) : — but E, ept, om, with AYM, G and others. 

xi. 8 {hegmvdng), + et ilk perseuerauit pulsans. So also, with [si'\perseuerau[er\it, dimEQR, mrt, 
and A, Z, CT, ®KX and others; also cffiilmrir^ 11.: — but dur om, with ept, and YFM, BG and 
many others ; also vtt b dfq B {ae Mant) ; with all gr. W-W om, but cl ins. 


f xi. II {SiiiQr petit), + filius eius. So Q, gat, and bfffiq; "ERiJUius, also dilrih [/^P]; with most 
gr : — all vg else, dur, AY, &c. (and edd), also rj, om ; with gr ^^L ([a hiaf] ; t writes _/?/zmj tuus, placed 
before />M«w). Note that_^a il ompanem . . . lapidem . . . aut si, after gr B, but against all gr and vt else, 
and all vg [ra is here aberrant ; /«, partly effaced]. Cp. Mt. vii. 9, 10. 

xii. 20 (after repetunt), + angueli. No other authority is found for this insertion, except Antiochus 
(cited by Tisch. in loc.) in Horn. 13 ; — it is an obvious gloss, probably common to many homilists. 

xiii. 25 (at end), + recedite a me omnes operarii iniquitalis. EQ (with slight variation) alone of vg 
(but no vt, and no gr) support the insertion of these words here ; but all have them at end of verse 27, 
to which place they properly belong [ra om the preceding part of 27, with 26]. 

t lb. 35 (after uesira), + deserta. So dur, as well as dimEQR, ept, G and other vg (so cl), abc dfl 
■q ri ra 8 fi (so Iren (lat) iv. xxxvi. 8, xxxvii. 5), after gr DA, &c., and some mss (Ipij/tos) : — but AY, MZ, 
CT, and many, om (and so W-W) ; with effi i, and gr ><ABL, &c. 

* xiv. 3 (after dixit ad ... . faris.), + dicens. So dur, as well as dimQR and most vg (and edd) ; 
also cffi i I r^S fj., after gr XABL, &c. (Xeycov) : — but E om, with ept, and AY, X, and a few ; also 
a b d e fq r,, after gr D. 

*\ ib. ib. (before licet) + si. So edd ; with dur and nearly all vg, n r^ /i and nearly all vtt ; after 
:gr AA, &c., and nearly all mss (et) : —but vg AY, and vtt d f, with gr SBDL, om. 

\ ib. ib. (at end), + an non. So b ; and to like eflfect {aut non) dimEQR, ept (mg), d efq n (ra /i, an); 
with gr SBDL, &c. (17 oil) : — dur, AY, and the rest (vg, vtt, gr) om, and so edd. 

f xvi. 8 (before quiafilii), + dixit autem ad discipulos suos, dico uobis. So Q, ari; also (but without 
■dico uobis) dimE, gat, M, bee (discentes for discip.) Ir^ jj,; ff^ writes dixit autem only ; d (after gr D, hio 
kiyut vfuv) propter quod dico uobis \i hiat"]. — All gr else om ; and so dur, AY, R, and vg in general (and 
edd), with vtt/q. 

ft xvii. 2 (before si lapis), + si non nasceretur, aut. So D, also (with ut for si) dim alone of vg, 
and (with small variations) a b cfft, ilqri (not efii. [ra Mat']). — No extant gr text attests this addition ; 
but the passage is so cited by Origen [lat] In Num. (xxx. i, 2) Horn. xxv. i (also ps-Orig., Dialog., 
Sect, ii, £1 itiri iytwTQOr), ^).^ Cp. Mt. xxvi. 24. 

tt ib. 1 8 (before inuentus), + ex illis. So D, and (after inmntus) dim alone of vg ; also (with 
variations) bffi i ra (noty* 8 fi. [rj hiaf]), and similarly a d {ex his) ; c I q, ex illis {om inuentus), e (also 
om inuentus), ex eis ; of gr, D only (e| avrSiv). 

*txix. 21 (after timui), + te. So edd, with dur, EQR, and most vg else; r, /n and vtt \_hiant b, 
xix. 26 — xxi. 30 ; ra, xix. 1 1-38] : — but dim, ept (txt), mrt, AY, FM, and a few vg, om. All gr ins a-i. 

I ib. 44 (after lapidem super lapidem), + in te uenient haec uniuersa. So also r^ ; and {et uenient in te . . .^ 
■Q, and {om haec) dim : — but no vg else, nor vtt afff^lq 8 /* [r^ hiaf]. Of other vtt, c ff.^ i s, write in te 
uniuersa ; which obviously represents eV 6X^ aoi, as read by gr D {d, in tola /«)', with only three mss. 
Here is a notable example of a Greek variant which has made its way into vg celt, mss not directly 
but through the Old Latin; for it is plain that in our text and Q, uniuersa, as neut. plur. nom., arises 
from misunderstanding oi uniuersa {=ok^), fem. sing, ablat., of vtt cffiis. 

tt XX. 37 (after dicit), + uidit. So also Q (alone of vg), and ra (not /a), both adding in rubo 
Ifi, rubrdy, and similarly (but with uidi) cfff^ il q ri.' 

t xxi. 6 (after lapidem), + hie in pariete. So dimQ, cff^. iq n rj (not m), and (with variations) ad Is, 
after gr D {iv to[x<9 tSSe).— Of other gr, J^BL, and the <^ group, ins only uSe, and so e {hie). Cp, for 
Mc, Mt. xxiv. 2. 

t ib. 1 1 (at end), + et tempestates. So dimQ, c ff^ i I q r^ r^ s ; a, hiemes [b hiat], — But all vg else om, 
and d/h it-, with all gr ; and so edd. 

txxii. 27 (after maior est), + in gentibus. So (after ministrat ^'^^) dimQ, and O (.?) ; also E (after 
recumbit <■'') ; many vtt also ins, a c eff^ i I n rj, but as part of a wider variation : — but not R, nor dur, AY 
or other vg, nor vtt b dfq ft. ; and no gr. Apparently a gloss, suggested by reges gentium of ver. 25. 

1 Tom II, p. 365 ; I, p. 814 {ed. Delarue). " This is otherwise mistaken by e, which writes, in tota terra. 
3 W-W ingeniously conjecture that these vtt represent a gr reading, xiy^i eUov [or -ey] 4u rp fidrv, from 
which eTSoK [or -ev] might readily have disappeared between the « preceding and the ev following. 


tt xxii. 6i (after dixit), + illi. So D alone of vg ; but with viiab c d eff^ i I q fi (not /* [rj hiat^i ; 
and soys, «'; all gr, auT<3. 

t xxiii. 2 (after gentem nostram), + ^/ soluentem legem nostram. So dimEQR, gat, with b c eff^ ilqr^ 
(all adding farther \jf\ prophetas, but ER, gat, c, om nosiram) : — not dur, or other vg, nor/ri fx [a hiaf] ; 
nor any gr. But Marcion (ap. Epiph,, Panar., i. iii. 69 (pp. 316, 346), cites with this addition. 

t ih. 25 (at end), + susciperunt ergo ihm et porians crucem ducehatur. So dimQ, and (with small 
variation) c ff^ I r^ [i def. from ver. 10, rj from ver. 14, to end of Gospel] ; ft. ins, but fi! cancels. — 
Neither dur, nor any other lat, nor any gr, ins. 

\ xxiv. 24 (before mulieres), + el. D stands alone among vg, in this insertion, and (except 8) no 
vt admits it :' — but nearly all gr (mss and mss) ins kuI, BD alone om. 

f ib. 29 (after inlrauif), + manere. So EQR, gat, with d rj S, and to like effect {ut maneret) a c e f 
{b, et mansit) ; with all gr {tov ixuvai) : — against dur, dim, AY, and all vg else (also ffi I ft.), which om ; 
and so edd. 

Three other examples are worth noting here, though they may be justly classed as harmonistic : 
(xi. 1 1 (see above) ought perhaps to be reckoned with these). 

tfxvii. 3 J (after perdiderit illam),^ propter me. So Q, and mrt ; and b cfffiUqr-ir^ (not yit), and 
to like effect e {mei causa) ; of gr, only A (cVexei/ J/iov). Cp. Mt. x. 39, xvi. 25, Mc. viii. 35. 

f xviii. 28 (at end), + quid erit nobis ? No other vg agrees in this ; but so vtt Iri r, (not /jl), with 
ergo after quid, with gr H'K (tl apa eo-rai i^/aiv;). Cp. Mt. xix. 27. 

ff xix. 45 (at end) + el messas [sic] nummul uendeniium columbas. This (an evident cento from 

Mt. xxi. 12, Mc. xi. 15, Joh. ii. 15) is found with slight variations in Q, and in acdeff^i (partly) 
I q r^r-iS (not /i) ; also in gr D, A, and one ms (262). 

(2) Besides the above, there are many examples, rather to be classed as 
"non-omissions" than as interpolations, which have not been included in the 
above list. Some of the most noteworthy of these are for convenience of reference 
brought together here, as follows : — 

(a) In the Lord's Prayer (c. xi), D retains — 

f xi. 2. + qui in cadis es, with dimQR, PZ ; and (with variations) all vtt, including r^r^ fx; after 
gr ACDA, &c. : — against dur, E, AY and most vg (and edd) ; and gr XBL with a few. (See farther, 
Subsect. III., p. clx infr.) 

f ib. ib. + fiat uoluntas lua . . . el in terra. So not only QR, and ept (txt), bnv, T, and others, but 
also dur : — dimE, ept', and AY, M, mrt, C, and most, om (also edd). Of vtt, b c defff.}, ilqrir^ S /j, ins, 
with slight variation; but a, fiat uol. lua only, as also vg Z, H'©. Of gr, i^ACDA and most ins: 
BL and a few mss. om. 

■(• ib. 4. + sed libera nos a malo. So QR again, with O (and B similarly), and vtt (with variations) 
bcd/ffiUqrir^^ jj. [_a e hiant'], after gr J^'ACDA, &c., and most mss : — but dimE om, with dur, and 
AY and most vg (and edd), after gr XBL, and a few mss." 

(yS) D also retains xxii. 20 [similiter et calicem . . effundetur) with latter part of 19 {hoc facile in 
meam comm.); as do all vg, and c/gi g rj ri 8 /x., with nearly all gr. — But a d ff% il om, following gr 
D {sol) ; b e also om 20, and place 17, 18, in its stead. 

(y) Also with all vg, and vtt except f\r^ hiat\ it retains (after gr >^DLA and most) the disputed 
verses, xxii. 43, 44 {apparuit .... orabat, et factus est ... . in terram [but with a casual omission, for 
which see next Subsection, p. clviii]) : — gr }<'AB and (of <^ group) mss 13, 69, 124, om. 

(8) Also, with all vg, and vtt ce/ff^lriS fx [qr^ hiant], it retains xxiii. 34 {ihs autem dicebal pater 
dimitte ), after gr i^ACD'LA and most : — but abd om, after ^^'BD, and two mss. 

' This insertion is overlooked by W-W, though (like illi in xxii. 61, which they note in loc.) it is an 
instance in favour of their opinion that Celtic vg mss were corrected after the gr. See notes, pp. cxlviii, cxlix. 

2 Though the printed Vulgate in these three places omits the words which DQR insert, the Prayer as it 
stands in the Roman Missal agrees with these mss and vtt in retaining them. 



The facts noted in the opening paragraph of this Section (above, p. cliv) 
prepare us to find that the text of St. Luke presented by our ms and the others 
of Celtic family tends less to omit than to amplify. Accordingly, the examples of 
omission collected in the following summaries prove to be neither very many nor 
of high importance. 

(i) Some, however, of the omissions of D in this Gospel, with or without Old- 
Latin support, are worthy of record. For example : — 

*f ii. 15 (before osUndit). D om fecit et, with dur, and dimQR, mrt ; as also Z, CT, BJ, &c. (so 
edd), and nearly all vtt, incl. r-^ /j. [r^ htai], after gr {iyvwpicrev) : — but L, and ept, with AY, FM, G, and 
others, t'ns. Note that e renders the gr by noium fecit, which reading may have led to the intrusion 
of fecit here in A, &c. 

fiv. 34 (after dicens), — sine. So also dur, as well as dimQ, GT [R hiai, iv. 29 — viii. 38] and all 
vtt (except S), incl. ri rj /a ; after gr D, and a few mss. — All vg else, and gr (ea), ins ; and so edd. 

vi. 35 (before sperantes), — inde. So also dim, ept (txl), and r^ S. Of the rest, A (Y, in te), mrt 
and a few, and cff^, ins inde (and so edd) : — but dur, with Q, bnv, ept (mg), FMZ, CT, &c., and all 
vtt else (including ri /x' [/a ?]) read desperantes. All gr, ajreXirtfoi'Tes. 

ib. 40 (before sicut), — si sit. So also dur, as well as dimQ, ept ; so too AY, M, CT, and most 
vg (and W-W), also vtt d eS ; with all gr. : — but Z, GH®, gat, mrt, and a few more, ins (and so cl) ; 
also acfgilqrifi; h ffi, ut sit [rj hiat^. — D also (inadvertently) om omnis erit (before si). 

f vii. 35 (before filiis), — ah omnibus. Of vg, dim alone, and of vtt, d [r-i diverges], om with our 
D here (but retain prep.); so too gr DL and some others om ttcivtuv) : — all else, gr and lat, ins 
(also edd) — possibly following Mt. xi. 19, where all vg (and so gr) om omnibus. 

X ib. 37 (after mulier), — quae erat. Here again our D om alone of vg, with d alone of vtt ; as, of 
gr, D alone om ^tis rjv. It is to be remarked, however, that the other gr and also vtt vary as to 
placing these words, some writing them before in ciuitate [which r^ om"}, some after. 

viii. 24 (after uentum), — et tempestatem aquae et cessauit. So D sol (vg) : — the rest ins ; as do also 
(with slight variation) all vtt (incl. n r% /x) ; with all gr ; except that T) d om-r. vSaros {aquae). 

\ ix. 25 (after detrimenium), — sui. So also dur ; and R, G, and vtt a b eff^ q r, {c and d similarly). 
— The pronoun is inserted in all vg else (and so edd), also in/"8/x, to express the middle force of 
the gr {^T^fj,i<i>6eis). For deir. suifaciat, ri writes detr. faciet animam suam ; I, animam suam only. 

xi. 25 (after mundatam), — et omatam. So also dur and Q, with AY and most vg, and rj; and 
likewise W-W : — but dimER ins, and cl ; also bfff^ iqr^h y., and to like effect cdel\a Mat'] ; with all 
gr (koi K£Koa-iJ.r]ix4vov), except one ms. 

xii. 41 (before ad omnes), — et. So also dimER, ept, AY and others ; and/?'^ /x, with gr X and a 
few mss : — while dur, and Q, mrt, with FM, CT, and most vg (and edd), and b {c, etiam) e ff^ I ri S 
[a ri hiant], ins, with nearly all gr (xac) ; but gr D and d alone om the whole sentence. 

xiii. 28 (before in regno [ — ww]), — intrare [or introire']. So also dimQR, as well as dur, and 
nearly all vg (and edd) ; also d efr^ 8 /«., with all gr: — but all vtt else ins {introeuntes, a b cff^ i I q r^, 
also Lcf.) ; and so vg AY {introire), and F {intrare). 

f XV. 12 (before da), — pater. No other lat om ; nor gr, except X. — G, mrt, and a b cff^ I r^ [r^ Mat, 
xiv. 18 — XV. 25] OOT/a/r?' instead, but supply illi). 

lb. 2 1 (at end), — fac me sicut unum de mercenariis tuis. So too dur, and dim, with AY and most vg 
and vtt (also edd); after gr ALA and most : — but EQ [R Mat, xv. 13— xvi. 25], gat, and T, with d ^t., 
ins, after gr J^BD and some others. 

xvi. 18 (after moechatur), — et qui dimissam .... moeckatur. So D sol (vg), and e {sol) vt, — probably 
each independently om by komceotel. 

ib. 23 (after eleuans), — autem. So dur, and dimQ, with MZ, CT, B ; and ff^ q fx,. — But A and most 
vg (and edd), with celri [r% Mat, xvi. 15 — xvii. 7] ins autem, thus disjoining eleuans from the preceding 
in inferno, which then connects itself with sepultus est of verse 22 (to like effect J, in inferno . et 
eleuans; and m, in infemum . et eleuans). This connexion is against the gr, which begins verse 23 
with Kol iv T^ q,Sy {a alone om koi) ; and so 6 dfS read et before in inferno. But a writes apud inferos. 



et de inferno eleuans ; i, apud inferos . in inferno eleuam, — both attempting to combine the two forms, 
but with no gr. — Of the mss which om autem, none ins et. 

X xvii. 35 — duae erunt molentes .... altera relinquetur. So D sol (vg) and / {sol) vt ; of gr, i^ and 
one or two mss alone om. [But neither D nor any vg except G, nor vt except S, follows the gr 
KABLA, &c., in omitting the clause duo in agro . . . . ; with these exceptions all vg (and add), and 
all the remaining vtt, incl. r, r^ /*, insert it, after gr DU, &c.j 

xix. 43 (after uallo), — et cinumdabunt /«.W So dur, with dimQ, ept (txt), also BO : — against all 
vg else (and edd), and all gr. This omission seems to be a natural correction,' to avoid the clumsy 
repetition of et circumdabunt te from the preceding sentence, where a different greek verb is represented 
by the same lat (7repi[or Trape/^tJ/JaXoCo-iv .... 7repLKVK\ii<Tov(TLv). All vtt [but b hiat'] avoid this blot ; 
some, as our D does, by omission (so r, r, /j, and others), some by using a different verb {circumcingent , 
as d, or circumibunt, z^fff^il; or otherwise. 

xxi. 3S (before terrae), — omnis D (txt) ; with (of vg) mrt, (of vtt) _^, and very few gr mss : 
D (mg) supplies orbis, with dur, and also dimQ, r^ jx.. — All lat else write omnis ; all gr, Trdcrr]';. 

f xxii. 24 (before contentio), — et. So too dur, and QR, also CT ; with a be eff^ ilq r^ r^ /x (E and 
gat substitute ^aec) ; gr K, and two mss, also om : — all vg else ins (so edd), and likewise gr, and df8. 

ib. 43. et factus in agonia prolixius orabat. Our D alone om ; probably misled by the similar 
beginning {et factus) of the next sentence (verse 44) ; against all else, lat and gr. 

ib. 46 (after .;/ ait illis), — quid dormitis ? So also dur, with R only (vg), /jl only (vt [ri Aiai, 
3^~59j)- The reading dormitis (/caSeuSere), without quid {tC), is found in gr D and d alone. 

ib. 69 (after uirtutis), — dei. So (of vg) G, (of vt) e I, of gr, ms 64, only. Cp. Mt. xxvi. 64, where 
our D rightly om, with most vg and all gr. 

*xxiv. 28 {before Jinxit), — se. So dur, and dimER, ept, and A'FMG, mrt (followed by W-W), 
also S n : — but Q, with AY, CT, H®, B and most (and so cl), and b c fff^, ins se ; also (varying the 
verb) a del\iqrx rn Mant^; all gr read ■n-pocreTron^a-aTo (or — eiTo). [Probably « has been supplied to 
give the force of middle voice ; or (as W-W suggest) it may have been repeated in error from the 
latter syllable of the preceding ipse.] 

(2) Other instances also occur (rather to be described as "non-interpolations" 
than as omissions) in which words or sentences, supported by " Western" evidence 
only (chiefly that of gr D), are passed over by our ms. In many of these cases, 
however, the omission is common to all Vulgate mss., and to such it is needless 
to make more than passing reference. Notable examples of interpolations thus 
ignored by all Vulgate occur in the following places of this Gospel : — v. 14 (end), 
vi. 4 (end), xi. 2 (after ■n-poarevx'JcrBe), xi. 30 (end), xix. 27 (end), xxiii. 53 (end), 
xxiv. I (end), xxiv. 31 (beginning). All these interpolations are attested by d 
and gr D ; nearly all by d and gr D only ; in one only {ei sicut ionas in uentre 
coeti . . . , xi. 30) is there considerable Old Latin support {a d {e')ffi r-^ ; all of 

them but two {eodem die uidens quendam operantem sabbato , vi. 4 ; and {c d) 

quern uix uiginti mouebant . . . . , xxiii. 53) are harmonistic additions. 

(3) But the following are examples of omissions from our text worthy of notice, 
as affecting insertions which have some support from Vulgate or from Greek : — 

ix. 54 (after consumet illos), — sicut et elias fecit. So dur, and all vg (celt), also AY and nearly all 
vg else (and edd) om : — but M®, ins, with n and most vtt, and gr ACDA, &c. (is Kat 'HXtas eVotijtrev). 
Of vtt, e g^l r^ii. om, with gr KBLH and one or two more gr \_ffi, i hiant\ 

ix. 55, 56 (after increpauit illos, 55), — et dixit nescitis (56) filius enim .... sed saluare. 

So likewise dur om, with dimQR, ept, gat, and Y, FG, also / rj 8, after gr J^ABCLAH, &c. : — while A 
and most vg (and edd) ins, with all vtt else [but ft. (txt) has only nescitis, and adds the rest on mg], 
after later gr mss and many mss (gr D and d ins the addition to verse 55 only). — Cp. Mt. xviii. 11. 

I W-W see in this a token of the affinity of the vg mss which omit ; but is it not rather an obvious 
emendation made independently by different editors to remove a palpable blemish ? 


XX. 34 (before [or after] nuiunt .... nupHas) — generantur et generant. Most vg (dur, dimR, &c., 
>with AY, &c.) om these words as our D ; also, of vtt, /8 /n [/ hiat'], with nearly all gr : — but E ins, and 
Q similarly ; of vtt, a, and (with nascuniur for generantur) rir^; d has pariuniur et pariunt, after gr D, 
yevi/toi^ai kox yivvCxriv. Of the Other vtt, ffi i q ins the words (so gat), also (transp.) eel; but all these 
om nubunt .... nuptias. Cp. for this insertion, Orig., Comm. in Matth., xvii. 34 ; Cypr., Testt., in. 
xxxii (Orig. retains, Cypr. omits, nubunt .... nupt.). 

xxiii. S3 (at end), .— et imposito eo . . . . lapidem magnum. All vg likewise om (except Q and one or 
two others), and edd, apd nearly all vtt, with most gr : — but c d ins, with (of gr) DU, some mss (inch 
of (^ group 13, 69, 124). Cp. Mt. xxvii. 60 ; Mc. xv. 46. — See also on this ver., p. clviii supr., par. (2). 

xxiv. I (before poriantes), — et quidam cum eis. So most lat om. Of vg, dimR alone ins (reading 
quaedam, and prefixing maria magdalena altera et maria) ; of vtt, d q riS (similarly /), with gr ADA, 
&c. (/cat Ttves a-iiv avrati), ins at end of verse : all vg and vtt else (and edd) om, with gr XBCL, &c. 
(/A om et quidam c. eis, but retains maria magd. et altera maria). Cp. Mt. xxviii. i. 

(4) Of the remarkable series of "Western" omissions (or "non-interpola- 
tions"), attested largely by Old-Latin evidence, which distinguish the Greek and 
Latin text as exhibited by Cod. Bezae (D d) of the last Chapter (xxiv) of this 
Gospel, it may be broadly stated that neither our ms nor any other Vulg. (Celtic 
or other) agrees with any one example. 


In the text of this Gospel, as presented by our ms, variations in the way of 
substitution abound. The subjoined examples include nearly all of these which 
seem to be of significance. They are selected, not in view of any textual theory, 
but as illustrative of the relations which the text of D bears to that of the other 
members of the Celtic Family, to that of the mss of Classis I, to the Old Latin, 
and to the Greek authorities. Some examples also are given merely because of 
their singularity. 

*i. 29. cum uidisset. So also dur, and ept (txt), gat, FMZ, G, T, and a few (and W-W) ; also 
c e r^ ix; similarly most other vtt, cum uidit (fi uidens) ; with gr (t8ou<ra, AGFA, &c. : — but ^JBDL, 
few mss, om) : — again, dimLQR, ept (mg), mrt, AY and a few, read audisset (with no gr, and no vt 
except S [alternatively]) ; and so cl. 

* ib. 59. uocabant. So also dur, and LQR with most vg ; and so edd ; also c d e r^^ fi : — but 
dim, gat, G, bffft I q r^, uocauerunt : — AY, uocant. All gr, iK6.\ovv. 

ib. 70 (after sanctorum) profetarum suorum qui ah aeuo sunt. So (placing /ri?/'. suor. before qui sunt) 
dimQR, G : — but dur, AY, and the rest, and edd, qui a saeculo sunt prophetarum eius (or to like effect). 
All vtt (exc. gi 8) arrange as our D, with (of gr) D alone {irpo^y]rSiv axnov tS>v Sltt' aOovos) ; but vary in 
rendering a^r' aiwvoi, — some (as D) ab aeuo [or ««o] ibffiq), — some (as A) a saeculo {ad/K), — c e, a 
principio, — /, ab initio, — r^ r^ it,, ab eo [Q writes ab iuo^. 

ib. 71 (before inimicis) et liberauit nos ab. So dimQR, G, gat, b cff^l {de) qririft. : — dur, AY, and 
all else (and edd), salutem ex {e, salut. ab ; _/" writes, dare salut. ex). All gr, a-unrjpiav el. 

X iii. 7 (before ira) futura. So dur, and LQR, ept (mg) :— but dim, with AY and all vg else, 
uentura, and so all known vtt [r^ Mat'} ; gr, /ieWowrj?. {Cp. Mt. iii, 7, where most vg \i?i\e futura, but 
dim and some, uentura, and so cl).' 

tt V. 2. leuabant. In this easy lapse dim alone (of vg) joins ; but of vtt, / r^ have et kuabant, ft., 
ut leuarent : — for lauabant of the rest (gr, hr'Kwov, BD : — the rest hrXxvav), But it is remarkable that 
leuabant appears on the mg of ept, and (as a correction) even in A. Cp. Act. ix. 37 (Sect. VII, 
Subsect. IV, infr.) — [R hiat, iv. 29 — viii. 38.] 

1 W-W note this as possibly an example of correction of the text by Celtic scribes after the gr ; but it is 
more likely that (as they also suggest) these Celtic vg texts here borrow (perhaps unconsciously) from the 
parallel, Mt. iii. 7, where the same gr word is rendered by nearly all, futura (but note that in this place of 
Mt, S 'ha.s/ufura uel uentura), 

U 2 


V. 2g. cum illo. So dur, also dimQ, and r^ [cum eo), with gr B, mss i and 22, /uet' outoC : — AY, and 
all vg else (so edd), also n, with most vtt, cum tilt's (gr, /act' airCtv, — but gr D om, and de fji.). 

* vi. 29. y«z' aufert. So dur, and dimQ ; with M, T, ©, bnv, mrt, &c. (so edd) ; and q r^ i*,; 
(similarly d, qui lollit) : — but dur', AY, Z, C, G, &c., ept, also most vtt {abfff^lr^, qui auferet. Other 
vtt render by participle, as c {auferenti) ; with gr, rov aipovros. — In f verse ^o, D, with dur, dimQ (and 
edd), and r^ /x, read as in 29 {auferf) :— while AY, Z, G, h/ff^ln retain auferet (but M and other 
vg, and vtt (as a) are inconsistent) — the gr being same in both verses \_q om ver. 30]. 

ft ib. 38 (after mensuram) conuersam. This error is shared by Q, and mrt ; also by r, /x. It appears 
that they have been led into it by the misspelling (as in dur, and dim, with MZ, CT, GIK, and b Iff^) 
confermm, for confertam (gr, ■irertie.crii.kvov), which is correctly written by AY, F, &c., and bnv, ept, (gat), 
(and edd) ; also q. Other vtt diversely (n, cumulatam). 

vii. 1 3 (after uidissei) ihs. So also dimQ, ept (mg), gat, J, and dfq ; with gr D only (tStov Sc 6 1170-.) : 
— dur, AY, and all else, vg (and edd), vtt (incl. r^ r^ fj.) ; gr, dns. 

*\ ib. IS (before mortuus) qui erat. So also dur, Q, and vg in general (and edd), also most vtt 
{b cfffr^lq ri r^ fi) : — but dim, AY, H®, qui fuerat ; gr, 6 vek/dos merely, and so ad eB om verb. 

ib. 45. intraui. So also Y, B, and a few ; and bfl q r-^ix. (also c d, iniroiui) ; with gr (all MSS 
except L, and most mss), daiiKOov : — for intrauit [ — oiuif\ of dur, dim, &c., A and the rest (and so 
edd); also aeff^gir^ S; with gr L and mss 13, 69, 346 of <^ group, &c., d(nj\6tv. 

ix. 29. factum est (. . . . species .... altera). So also dur, dimEQR, ept, mrt, AY, MZ, CT, B, 
and nearly all else ; and a dfvi S ; so too W-W : — but G© (and cl), with n /u, and rest of vtt, facta est 
(probably a grammatical correction). E (also a) ins. facta est before species). All gr, eyeVero. 

\ib. 35. electus. So also dur, and R, gat, B; aff^l; with gr KBLS, two mss, (e/cXeXey/ieVos, or 
c'/cXeKTos) : — for dilecius of the rest, including fj {c /*, dilectissimus [n hiaiy), and edd ; with gr ACDA, 
&C. (dyaTTj^Tos). 

* ib. 44. futurum est [ut tradatur [ — etur, or eretur^. So also dur, QR, and nearly all vg, and edd ; 
also f r^ 8 : — but dimE, and AY, futurus est (again a grammatical correction, as verse 29, supr.). 
Most vtt {bffilqri /J.) render tradetur, or the like (without futurum est ut) ; or (as ac de), incipit tradi 
(gr, /ieXXci vapaSLSoa-dai). 

f X. 15. numquid usque in caelum exaltatus [sic] es ? Similarly Q, and e i I /i, likewise a 5 dr^ (nearly), 
after gr HBDLH, fitj . . . . vif/oiOrjar] (but for numq., hi write quid; e, nedum) : — dur, with dimER, ept, 
AY, and nearly all vg else (and edd), with c r^ 8, read without interrogative, usque in {ad) caelum exaltata 
[«], (buty^, quae usq. in (ad) caelum exaltata es), after gr ACA, &c. (17 vi/'w^citra) [QR, fi, have exalta, 
for exaltata ; ff^ Mat, ix. 49 — x. 20]. 

*f ib. 30. suscipiens. So also dur, and dimQ, and ept ; also Y, HOP, and edd ; and a dff^ Iqr^ri^ jj. 
(after gr, iTro\a/3u>v) : — E wrongly reads suspiciens, and so even A, FMZ, CT, G, bnv, &c., and b c i V ; 
e, subiciens, and f respondens. Cp. xix. 5, infr. [R hiat, x. 20-38]. 

*f ib. 32. pertransiit. So ( — iuit) dur, dimQ, ept (mg), edd and most ( — it, — iit, or — iuit) ; with 
/i fj /t and nearly all vtt (c e, praeteriuit) ; gr, avTivapriXOiv : — but ept (txt), AY, FM, OP, transiit. 

xi. 2 (after pater) sancte. So also E, a c ff^i i : for noster, of QR, PZ, b d efl q r, 8, after gr ACDA, 
&c. ; but rj writes pater noster sancte; /x, pater sancie noster. — All vg else, dur, AY, &c., om both, with 
gr b^BL and a few mss. See also Subsect. i, 2 (a) supr., p. clvi. 

f ib. 3. hodie. So also dur, dimEQR, ept, ZJ, TX, nearly all vtt, including /-j rj \i., (gr D and a few 
mss, u-r)\i.ipov); and so cl : — but AY, M, Z', bnv, mrt, and all vg else, and q, cotidie (so W-W) ; with all 
gr else, to ko.B'' ri\x.ipa.v (including A; but 8 writes hodie). 

xii. 7. plures estis. Not only dimER [Q hiat, 6-18], ept, share in this misreading, but likewise 
even dur, AY, M, BT, bnv, mrt, &c., also b c e lriii.[ri hiat, xi. 54— xii. 45].— But M'Z, CG®JKPV (so 
edd), and ff^ i q, h&ve. pluris estis ; f excellenliores estis, a d, differ{i)tis (or — ritis) (gr, 8ia<ji)e/3£Te). — So, 
too, verse 24, the same blunder recurs in dur, and dim E (also in Q; but R, pluri [sic']), and in 
AY (not M) BT, bnv mrt ; also in b e I r^ fx, (but not c) \ ffii q in this latter verse lapse into plures ; 
but (/ as in 7 ; y, meliores estis, {a hiat). 

\ ib. 42. constituit. So also dur, and dimQ, Z, CT, G, H®, &c., with b c deff^lq 8,— followed by cl, 
after gr X (not D A) and one or two mss (KaTea-Trjo-ev) : — but ER, ept, bnv, mrt, and AY, M, BO, &c., 


and /z Ti fi [ra hiaf\, constituef ; gr (nearly all) Karaa-Trjcru ; and so W-W. [Note that in the parallel, 
Mt. xxiv. 4S, all vg (except ER) read constituit, and all gr (except i^M), KaTtWijo-ev.] 

xii. s8 {dSiQX forte) iradat.'^'* So also dimEQ(R), and CT, J, BG and others, gat, mrt (but R om ap. 
iudicem et iudex tradat /«'*'); c e /8 : — but dur, with AY, MZ, H®, apt, and edd, trahat (as most gr, 
incl. A, KOTocrupj;). Most vtt {b dff^iilqr-^ condemnet (after gr D, KaraKpivy) ; but n /*, perducat. — No 
gr supports tradat [it probably comes from the pll. Mt. v. 25, where gr is 7rapa8<3]. 

xiii. 12. cum uideret. So also dur, and dim QR, ept (mg), MZ, CT, I], and a few, so cl ; and 
iffi i I ft, : — but E, ept (txt), with AY, F, BGH©, &c., and a c efq n ra, uidisset, followed by W-W. 
All gr, t8(ov (8, uidens). 

*f tb. 15. respondit ...«/. So also dur, and dimQR, &c., and nearly all vg (and edd) ; also bdelqh 
(gr, airfKpWij . . . ko.C) : — but AY, BO, and a c/ffi i n r^ /u,, respondens (AY, 0, and /x, retain «/, unmean- 
ingly, but B (so cl), and vtt, om). [Note that D writes resp, and rj fi, res (both presumably = respondit).] 

xiii. 25. tntrauertt. Here all vg agree, and nearly all vtt (incl. n rj /t) in following gr D and mss 
1 3, 69, 346 of <^ group, which read [«i(r]6X6^ : — but b q, surrexerit (and to like effect «, incipiet surgere) 
after the gr of all else, AvlyipO^. Note that A reads aveyepSij, but 8, intrauerit. 

lb. 30 (before primi) qui erant^^K So dur, and dimQR, also Z, T, mrt, bnv, and a few; also 
.e n p. (but no gr) : — for qui erunt of AY and all else, and most vtt (but / om), with all gr ; and so 
,edd. — Similarly as to erant^'^ (except that a has fuerunt; I n, erunt [r^ in both places «r/]). 

ft J xiv. 29. ne postquam posuerit .... non potuerit . . . . et omnes. Our D is alone' among vg, in this 
reading; but d e concur in it : — all else place et before non pot\u'\erit, and om et before omnes ; — so as 
1;o make non potuerit belong to the protasis, not (as D) to apodosis. Of gr, D (/a^ la-yya-r^ . . . Kai, for 
KoL /ifj lo-xvovTos [or — vo-avTos] of all else, is the sole gr authority for thus altering the place of et. 
Augustine (cited by W-W in loc.) adopts a like arrangement {Epist. 243). [Note that dim hiat, xiv. 

18— XV. 18.] 

XV. 8. euertit. So also vg in general (but dur, and Q, gat, uertit) : — edd rightly substitute the 
conjectural euerrif' ; all gr, a-apoi, (incl. A ; but 8, euertit, as also p.) : — vtt mostly, mundat (as d), 
.emundat (as e), scopis mundat [ — alit, or — auiti (as the rest ; but a, sc. commundat), or the like [rj hiat, 
•XV. 13 — xvi. 25]. Cp. Mt. xii. 44. [R hiat, xv. 13 — xvi. 25.] 

ib. 15. in uillam suam. So our D, with all vg. W-W erroneously cite D as reading in agros^, 
-which is here read only by d, after gr D (and most gr) (ets tovs dypou's, — om avrov, which other gr add) ; 
.a e, in agro sua. 

xvi. 2. uilicare dissipare. So D ; expuncting the word which all other vg read here, and many 
vtt (J c d/ffi i I q S); after gr oIkovo/xclv. — Dissipare is a mistake (the scribe having been led astray by 
dissipasset in verse 1) for dispensare, which r, rj p. read here. Note that r, uses (for uillicus, — are, — atio) 
■dispensator, — are, — atio, throughout (vv. 1-4, 8) ; also mostly r^ and p.. 

* ib. 3. au/ert. So also dimEQ, MZ, IJ, T and most ; and deflq nS p. [rj hiat] and so edd ; after 
.gr, a^aipiiTai : — but dur, and ept, with AY, F, C, and a few ; and a b cff^ i, au/eret. (Cp. vi. 29, supr.) 

tf ib. 6. literas tuas. So D alone of vg, with b c dfft q r^r^ p. (gr, crov to. ypap-para, J^EDL ; but gr 
AA and all else, <rov to ypd.p,p.a) : — for cautionem tuam of all vg else (and edd), as also a/ {hut e I, chiro- 
grafum tuum ; 8, cautionem uel litteram uel liniam). Note that in verse 7 {infr.), where gr varies 
between ro. ypd.p,p,aTa and to ypa.p.p.a, as here, a alone retains cautionem tuam ; the rest, vg (so edd) 
and vtt (8, tuam litteram), literas tuas [but i Mat, S-40]. 

\ lb. 14. amatores peccuniae. So D sol (vg), with a r^ (vt) : — all vg else (and edd) auari; some vtt, 
■ cupidi, or cupidissimi (n cupidissimi et amat. pec.) : gr, i>L\dpyvpoL. 

*f ib. 26. nos et uos. So also Z, CT, ®IJ, mrt, and others (so edd) ; also most vtt, incl. n p. [ru hiat, 
xvi. 15 — xvii. 7), with gr : — but dur, and EQR, ept, AY, FM, and others, with b e m S (against A), uos 
■et nos. 

ib. ib. chaus magnum. So also dimR, and ept, HOY, and deff^ p.; a deviates: — but dur, and Q, 
with A and most (so edd), and vtt b cflqr^ 8, chaos magnum [or magnus]. M has chasma magnum, as 
the gr, ■)(a(TpM p-eya; whence Y (omitting the repeated syllable ma) writes chasmagnum. It is probable 
ithat (as Bentley conjectured) chas, chaus, chaos, are corruptions hence derived. 

• This reading of our MS has been casually overlooked by W-W. " Henten {in loc.) cites one ms 
Aoxeuerrit. ^ See W-W in loc ; also torn. I, fasc. V {Efilogus), p. 714, note*. 



xvii. 7. died. So also dim, with AY, M, G'H® (so W-W), r, and most vtt (gr, cpct) :— but dur, 
with EQR, CT, IJ, G, ept, and vtt c d e /), dicit (r,, /m,, dt, presumably = dicit, — and so in ver. 8) : — Z, 
BKOVX, mrt, and /, dicat (and so cl). 

ih. 8. sed dicet. So n and most vtt (but «/8, sed dicit; with gr D (dA.\a IpCC)). — AY and most vg 
read et non (so too /*) ; gr, aX\' ovxt (for sed) ; only dur, and dimEQ, GJ, et non dicit (KOV, Z, et mn 
dicat; r^ illegible). 

t ib- 33. saluare. So also dur, and dimQ, ZJKV, gat ; also eff^ n S f/. : — but R, AY, &c., a/trj, 
saluam /acere {so edd) ; h c i q^ liberare. Most gr have o-uicrat (BL, ircptTroDjcracr^at ; D, ftooyov^crai). 

xix. 5. suscipiens. So dur {suscipens [_sic']), QR, Y, also r^ : — dimE, with A, and nearly all vg else 
(and edd), suspiciens ; and so/fx. ; other vtt variously (r,, respiciens) ; gr, ava^Xeif/a^. Cp. x. 30, p. clx. 

*\ib. 10. saluum facere. So also dur, with dimQR, and most (and edd); also most vtt, incl. 
n ^2 M, : — but AY, H®, and deil, saluare (all gr, a-wa-ai.). Cp. xvii. 33 {supr.). 

ib. 37. discendentium. So [or desc] also dimEQR, and bnv, mrt, AY, F, CT, H®IJSKO, &c. :— 
an error for discentium, which is read only by M, G, and one or two vg more (so W-W), also /"/i S 
[equivalent to discipulorum, which V here gives (also cl), with deqr^ /n] ; gr, /na^iyrSv. Most vtt om 
{a cffi its [b ^2 hianfj). — For discentes = fjLadrjTo.'i, cp. e, xvii. i, supr., also d e, Joh. vi. 66, and d, Joh. 
xxi. 2 ; and see on Joh. xxi. 12, p. clxxi infr. In dur and ept there appears the corruption dicentium of 
the true reading. The word descensum, just before, has apparently misled the scribes of most mss.' 

* XX. 26. in response. So also dur, and dimQR, ept (mg.), JZ, CT, &c., and edd, with a cff^ Iqr^ r,, 
(so G and dih jx, responsione) : — but E, AY, M, H©, &c., ept (txt) bnv gat mrt, in responsis («/" also 
plur.). All gr, ETTt T^ aTTOKpitrei. 

xxi. 12. tradenfes '■" {ad reges). So also dur, and dimER, ept, bnv, with AY, M, C, GH, Sac, and 
ru, /A : — but Q, mrt, and Z, B®IJ, and others, trahentes (and so edd) ; also s ; (n and most vtt, ducentes, 
or similarly). The gr is dyoyueVovs (AX A, &c.), or dTrayo/teVovs (J^BDL, and a few mss. ; none has 
active ptcp.). Note that in the previous sentence the well-attested tradentes represents TrapaStSoires. 

ft xxii. 7. immolari. D sol (vg) reads thus, with vtt defff^ ilqr^ (S oni) : — all vg else (dur, dim, 
&c., AY, &c., and edd), also bcr^ix, occidi, which is not so good as a rendering of the gr (^ueo-^ai). 

*f z'3. 10. occurret. So also dur, and dimQR, and most (so edd); with rir^ix, and all vtt (fut.); 
as all gr, (rvvavTrjo-ei (or (XTT — , or VTT — ) : — but AY, FM, HIX, occurrit. 

*f ib. II. dicit. So also dur, and dimEQR, &c. (and edd), with nearly all vtt, incl. r^ [r^ yu, di\ ; 
gr, Xeyci : — but AY, FT, mrt, also b, dicet (unmeaningly). 

*f ib. 37. (after dice) enim. So also dur, and dimEQR, ept, MZ, T, ®IK and most vg, with all 
vtt (incl. ri /x [rj hiat, vv. 36-59]) ; all gr, yap : — but AY, F, C, BGJ, bnv mrt, and others, autem. 

* ib. 67. non credetis. So dimE, C, H®JKVX, &c. (so edd) and dqi>.\ with gr, ov /jly) Tna-TcvcrrjTE : — 
but dur, and QR, mrt, with AY, MZ, T, G, &c., and most vtt, incl. r^ r^, S, non creditis. 

xxiii. 15. nam remisi uos ad ilium. In this reading, (i) our D, dimQR, bnv, ept, mrt, agree with 
dur, and AY, FMZ, CT, BIJ, &c. (and so edd) ; after gr AD A, &c. (dveVe/ii/'a yap vp,as irpos avrov) ; and 
to like effect nearly all vtt (incl. 8 jj. and {mist) d ri) [note that i finally breaks off in xxiii. ro, and r^ in- 
xxiii. 14]. — But (2) E, and gat, transpose ilium and uos (with gr mss 71, 248, avrov wpos r/xSs) : and 
(3) ®, with first hand of H and O, reads nam remisit eum ad nos, and so /; with gr ^^BKL, and a few 
(dveVe/xi/'ei' yap avrov Trpo; ■^/xa^). This latter reading (3) is in dim and Q inserted (with uos for nos 
in Q) before the former (2), with in alio sic prefixed ; and similarly in G : — obviously an example of 
a marginal alternative that has found its way into the text.* 

*\ ib. ig. quandam. So also dur, with dimEQR, ept, mrt, MZ, B®IJ and most (so edd); also 
vtt (incl. [>. [fi hiat]), and so gr, rtva : — but AY, F, CT, GH, quondam. 

*-\ ib. 41. recipimus. So dur, with dimEQR, &c. (so edd), also (pres.) most vtt, incl. /* ; gr, 

dTToXa/t/Sdi/o/iei/ : — but AY, F, IX, and a 3 r-^,, recepimus (perf. ; also c, percepimus), with gr C, aireXd^a/xev. 

*f ib. 47 (after iustus) erat. So dur, with dimEQR, &c. (and edd) ; and nearly all vtt, incl. I r^ /i 
(gr, rjv) : — but AY, M, O, mrt, also c, est. 

*\ ib. 51. consilio. So dur, with dimEQR, ept, mrt, H®IJV (and edd); also most vtt {abcdfqtt. 
[fi hiat'] ; gr, tjj /iovXy : — but AY, MZ, CT, G, bnv, &c., concilia ; also eff^ I. 

' R makes the converse mistake, ix. ^'z, sujir. ; discentibus for discendentibus. 

* See on this Berger, Hist, de la Vulg., p. 57, where other MSS are cited as erring in like manner. 


*f xxiv. 24. non uiderunt. So dur and dimEQR, Z, CT, BJ, and one or two more, gat (and 
BO W-W), also Tx fx., and nearly all vtt [_q Mat, 11-39] '> ^^ g''> ^^S"" {^'>^^- D, and d e, dSo/Mev, uidimus) : 
— but AY, FM, GH®, &c., bnv apt mrt, inuenerunt ; and so cl. 

Note that no lat (vt or vg) follows the reading of gr i^BCL, toS riXiov «K\wrdvTos (xxiii. 45), for 
ia-KOTiadt] 6 ^\ios of gr AC'DA, &c. 

Subsection iv.— DOUBLETS. 

Our MS also has some instances of dittograph or conflate readings, — a few 

■of which are worth recording : — 

ii. 13. militiae caelestis exercitus. So also L. Here miliiiae (dur, dimEQ, AY, and nearly all vg) 
and exercitus (most vtt, incl. n ri) are duplicate renderings of o-rpanas. Of other vg, GR alone 
have exercitus •■, of vtt, dfZ /x alone, militiae. The latter is read by cl, as well as by W-W ; but the 
former is retained in the anthem Gloria in Excehis. 

viii. 42. a iurbis sic compremebatur ut suffocarent eum (gr, 01 o)(koi a-wiirviyov airoi'). Here(i), 
iurhae comprimebant eum (as 8, and bqto like effect) suffices as a rendering ; but (2) turbae suffocabant eum 
(as d) is closer to the gr. All vg else use the former verb, but in the passive (reading a turba con- 
primebatur without sic), and omit ut suffocarent eum : — but D, and dim similarly, with ept (mg), add as 
above, borrowing the verb from d, and thus form a conflate rendering serving as a periphrasis. So 
also ffz I n fi, and (with variation) a [e r^ hiant']. 

xiv. 19. et idea uenire non possum, rogo te habe me excusatum. So also Q, and similarly jx. Most 
vtt {abcdffiimqri [rj Mat, xiv. 18 — xv. 25]), with gr D, have the first clause only (/, merely non 
possum). All vg else [dim Mat^ xiv. 18 — xv. 18], and edd, also e (but om rogo te) f, with all gr else, 
have second only. Thus the above reading is a conflation of the two. 

lb. 22 (at end) adhuc locus uacat locutus est: (gr, In rdiros eo-rtv). It is evident that locus uacat 
{so Q) is an alternative rendering of the gr, for locus est of A, most vg (and edd), and c dfq) ; while 
locutus est is a perversion of the latter, found in many vg mss (even in dur, and Y, as well as in ER, 
ept, gat, FZ, &c.) and in vtt' a b eff^lri S /x [i r^ Manf]. D alone includes both in its dittograph text. 

XX. 35. qui digni habebuntur saeculo illo et in resurrectione .... neque nubunt .... So D alone. 
Nearly all vg (dur, AY, &c.), and most vtt (incl. /j /x, and to like effect ri), write et resurrectione and 
om in, thus correctly rendering the gr {koX rrp dvao-Tao-eus). But O sol (vg), and (vtt) ace, wrongly 
substitute in for et (connecting the words with nubunt, and not with digni habebuntur, as the gr requires). 
The conflation of our text, as above, adding in after et, adheres to this error. 

xxii. 52. dixit . . . . ad eos qui uenerant ad se a principibus sacerdotum. So (i) D, and also dim, and 
similarly/"^. But (2) dur, EQR, AY, and all vg else and most vtt (incl. /a [rj Mat, 37-59]), write 
principes for a principibus (and so gr, Trpos tovs Trapay(voiJ,€vovi irpos avrov apxiepui). Again, (3) ri has 
Ms for ad eos, and principibus {dative, followed farther on by magistratibus, senioribus) for principes, (Sec." 
This dat. principibus, mistaken for an ablat., has led to the wrong insertion (as above) of the prep, a, 
and thus to the conflate text as above, formed by the combination of dixit . ... ad eos ... . principes 
of most vg, with dixit . . . his . . . principibus of r^. This example is to be noted as one in which 
the vt element in D and dim is traceable to a unique reading of the Irish vt ms r^. 

xxiv. 29. aduersarium declinat dies et inclinata est iam dies. So D ; and somewhat to like effect gat. 
In the text thus presented, we perceive — (i) That aduersarium (of D) is a corruption of ad uesperum 
(or perhaps of ad uesperum iam), gr, jrpos kcrTripav[y]hrf\ : (2) That, thus corrected, the text combines 
two readings, corresponding to two forms of the gr, viz. — (a) ad uesperum [iam'] declina[ui]t dies, as 
read by (of vg) dimE, J, CT, and (of vtt) nearly all (incl. p. and r^), with gr D, (tt/sos io-Trepav /cexXticei' 17 
rjixipa) ; (;8) aduesperascit et in [or de-^clinata est iam dies, as dur, QR, ept, AY, F, &c., and nearly all 
vg else (and edd) ; with (except D as above) all gr (Trpos fo-iripav ia-rlv koI KiK\iKev[i^Srj]rj ijpipa). By 
joining to (o) the closing words of (/8), the dittograph texts of our D and gat have been formed. 
Traces of like but slighter conflation appear in vtt/" 8. 

It is hardly worth while to note that the tendency to doublet readings shows itself in the repeated 
occurrence of est erat (as ii. 17, iv. 17, and elsewhere). 

1 For b, see Buchanan, y. T. S., vol. x, p. 121. 

- In b e also, principibus, &c., appear, but with ad eos (not his) ; / writes ait ad turhas only. 


Section V. — Text of Gospels : (/V) St. John's Gospel. 

In this Gospel the text of our ms. bears the same twofold character as in the 

former three : it is a sound Vulgate text, freely altered by admixture of Old Latin 

readings. — Of the former of the two elements thus distinguished in it, the most 

important example is to be found in Chap, v, verse 4, where it stands nearly alone 

among the mss of the list of W-W, and is the authority cited by them for 

omitting that verse from their text (see below, p. clxvi), in which omission it follows 

Cod. Durmach. As regards the Old Latin element, the following summaries will 

show that it pervades the ms in this Gospel, as in the others ; but mainly in the 

form of insertions or substitutions of minor importance. Apart from the above 

signal instance, it shows little tendency to omit, except in a few cases which are 

due to hommotehuton. 

In this Gospel, of the mss (Celtic group), Q Mat, xii. 27 — xiii. 20 ; xvii. 1 3 to end ; L def. ; but 
DER and dim are complete ; as is also dur. Of vtt, n Mat, i. 1-15, and has many smaller gaps, most 
of them insignificant (so that its text in this is less defective than in the other Gospels) ; rj Mat, i. i— 
V. 13 ; vi. 25 — viii. 7 ; x. 3 to end; /* is complete. 


The subjoined collection of examples will suffice to show the character of the 
additions to the Vulgate text presented by our ms. 

ft i. 34 {iSitx filius dei) + ekctus. So also R, and ab jx. (but expct.), also [pm filius) e ff^; with gr Kj 
and mss 77, 218 : — against all else, and edd. 

t iv. 2 (marg., h&iox& ihs) ^ ipse. So also ER, most vtt (a 3(^«/"^2 /§■ n S) ; after gr (except ms 251) 
avTCfi, — but some of the vtt and gr transpose : — all vg else, and c (also /a, but ins et before ths), om ; 
and so edd. 

f ib. 3 (after iudeam) + terram. So also ER, gat ; a b deff^lr^ /* (some transpose) ; with gr D and 
some mss (incl. 13, 6g, 124 of ^ group), yrfv. — the rest (vg (and edd), and of vtt, c fq; with all other 
gr) om. 

ib. 12 {a.her puteum) + istum. So also dimR, gat, and //.; and similarly hunc, T, GH®X, a efffi 
I q r^; with a fev/ gr mss (of <ji) group, 69, 1 24), tovto : — the rest (and edd) om. 

ff vi. 17 + nondum. So also R, a bflqr^ 8 fi {d e, necdum), with gr i^BDL (not A) and a few mss 
(incl. 6q, 124 of 4> group), ov-n-ui : — dur, &c., AY and all vg else (and edd), and vtt cff^ \ri Mat\ non ; 
with gr ArA, &c. 

ib. 22 (before or after una [scil., nauicula\) + ilia. So also dimQR, r^ii, (and e, but om una), and 
similarly illud [scil., nauigium unum\, b r\ ; with TAA (ei/ exctvo [sc, ir\oiapiov (^, er/ceti/o)] : — but dur, 
AY and all vg else (so edd), and most vtt {ac dfff^lq), with most gr mss (i^'ABPL) and some mss, 
om pronoun. — Some of these vtt also {a d e) after una or ilia subjoin a farthc addition (in quam 
ascenderant discipuli eius, or the like) ; and so gr (^)DrA (not 8) A, &c. ; — but no vg. 

t ib. 26 (after signa) + ei prodigia. So also R, gat, and a b d/r^ /jl [ra Mat, vi. 24 — viii. 7] ; with gr D 
(koI repara) : — edd with all else, lat, gr, om. 

f ib. 39 (after non perdam ex eo) + quicquam. So also dimR, ept (mg), gat, KT ; b ry n [r^ Mat"] 
similarly adff^, with niMl for non . . . quicquam, and_/"j, non . . . aliquid; after gr D, iJ.r)8£v: — edd with 
all vg else, and c e d, om (« also om ex eo). 

[Note that all vg retain the Pericope de Adultera (vii. 53— viii. 12), as also most vtt (incl. n r^ /a) ; 
with gr D and other later mss and many mss (varying much) : — but a/ 1 q om, also 8 (with gr ^^ (A) 
B(C)LA, &c., and many mss). In b it has been cancelled; in /, a second hand supplies it in the mg.] 

viii. I o (after ubi sunt) + qui te accusauerunt. So D (txt) alone of vg (to like effect, ff^ ; but ■(■ (mg) 
accusabant, as dur, and dimR, ept, mrt, F, CT, GH®, &c. (and cl), also /' nr, /x; EQ, Y, JOX, accusant ; 
and similarly some gr (ot Karrj-yopoi crov) : — but A, AS, MZ, bnv (and so W-W), and c d e, with gr D 
and many, om. [Here r^ def,, finally.] 


ft viii. 59 (at end) + et transiens per medium eorum ibat sic. So D alone of vg, and (with variation) 
(/) ? ''a 8 (/*) \_fom sic, /x. has et transit only], with gr X'ACLA, &c. : — against all lat else, and gr i^BD, 
and edd. From Lc. iv. 30. 

Note that q hiat, x. 1 1 — xii. 38 ; ri hiat, x. 3 to end. 

X. 1 1 (after ouibus) + suis. So also dimEQ, ept (mg) bnv, Z, T, ©K, &c., b eff^ r^ /i (and so cl) : — 
but dur, with R, ept (txt), mrt, and AY, AS, FM, C, GH, &c., and a c dflh, and all gr, om (and so 
W-W). (Possibly the inserted pers. pron. (here and verse 15) merely represents the gr art., t<1v.) 

ih. 15 (after ouibus) + meis. So also dimEQ, MZ, S, CT, GH®, &c.; most vtt (incl. ri fi), and so cl : 
— but dur, R, AY, A, F, ept, and a few, also adS, with all gr, om, and so W-W. 

•fj- xii. 3 (after domus) + omnis. So D alone of vg, and ri alone of vtt (/n om sentence [/ hiat, 
xi. 56 — xii. 10]) ; with gr ms i and all mss of ^ group (oXjj). 

\'\ ib. 13 (after clamabant) + dicentes. So D alone of vg, and adff-tfx; with gr i^AD, &c. : — 
r, and all else om, 

f xiii. 18 (after ego) + enim. So also dur, dimR [Q hiat'\, ept, c I q r^ fj.; with gr SA, &c., and 
many mss (including all of <^ group), ydp: — all else, vg (AY, &c., and edd), vtt {abdefffih), and 
gr, BCDLA, &c., om. 

\ ib. 25 (after ilk) + sic. D alone of vg, with no vt except S \l hiat, /j, illegible] after gr BCLA and 
other MSS (ovtws), and many mss : — but gr XAD, &c., and many mss, om ; with all lat else, and edd. 

■f f ib. 27 (after dicit) + ergo. D alone of vg, with vtt b cffi q r^S {/jl ?), and most gr (Xeyei ovv) : — 
but gr D has Kal kiyu, which d e, mrt, ©IT follow (cl, et dixit) ; all vg else, dicit only, also afl, (so 
W-W) ; with a few gr mss. 

ib. 34 (between sicut and dilexi) + et ego. So also E, gat, with gr D (xdyco) and d; ab eflm, ego 
only : — the rest (vg and vtt) om ; (dim and /* om the sentence sicut .... inuicem [/ hiat hence to xiv. 23]). 

ib. 35 (before dikctionem) + uos. D (mg, to follow si), with no other lat, and no gr ; but so cited 
by Optatus [ap. Sabatier]. 

j-f ib. 37 (before quare) + domine. So also T, alone of vg, but with nearly all vtt (incl. n /*) ; 
after all gr except i^ and two or three mss. 

f xvi. 3 (after facient) + uobis. So also dim, GIX, and cl, a c dfff^ [ti hiat] ; with gr i^DL, mss 
I, 69, and a few more: — against dur, EQR, AY, &c. (and W-W), which om, as also belqSfi, with 
gr ABA and most mss. 

f xviii. 8 (after respondit) + eis. So also dimE, R {om ihs), and G ; also fr^ {q, illis) ; with gr D 
(a^Tois), and a few mss : — the rest, gr and lat (incl. /«.), om pronoun.' 

•f ib. II (between non and bibam)+ uis. So also dimER, K, Z {uis ut, so c r^), ept (mg) m's non; 
abqB as D (also /u, [but expct.]) : — the rest, vg and vtt, om ; gr, ov /xij Trtoa. 

J xix. 4 (before exiit, — it, or — iuit) + et. D alone [but Sabatier notes, " quidam legunt, et exiit"'\, 
with gr ABL and others (koI i^rjXBiv): — most vg (dur, AY, &c.) om (so W-W), as also c efq y. {a, 
egressus), with Sr and a few: — again, b, exiit itaque; cl, withj^j 8, exiuit ergo; and so A and most gr, 
iir\KQf.v ovv ; r\, exiit autem ; (E (vg) om whole verse). 

f ib. 32 (before crucifixus) + simul. So also dimE, a b cfq\i. (all gr, toB o-u[v]o-Taupo)6£i/Tos). No 
lat else. 

f XX. 2 (after dnm) + meum. So also dim, mrt, F, r^ 8 (not /a) ; after gr XA. 

ib. 16 (after maria) + ego sum. D alone. 

•f ib. ib. (before rabbont) + ebreice. So also E, B, gat; bcdeff^ r^ 8 (/u., but expct.) ; with gr KBDLA, 
&c. {ifipdia-Ti) : — all vg else om, and a/q; with gr A and many. 

ib. ib. (at end) + et occurrit ut tangueret eum. So also E, gat mrt, }>. (but expct.) ; with gr i^' and 
mss 13, 346 of ^ group. — No lat or gr else. 

\ib. 31 (after uitam) + aeternam. So also dur, with dimER, Z, BKO, gat; be/qr^fi. {d, sempi- 
temam) ; with gr XCDL, &c. {almnov), and many mss (including all of <^ group) : — vg in general om, 
and a cm; with gr ABC'A, &c. 

' Of the MSS, gr D hiat, xviii. 14 — xx. 13 ; d, xviii. 2 — xx. i ; ff^, xvii. 15 — xviii. 9 ; /, xvi. 13 to end ; 
Q, xvii. 19 to end. 




xxi. 6 (before misserunt) + dixerunt autem per iotam noctem laborantes nihil cepimus in uerbo autem iuo 
mittemus. So too dur, also (with variations) dimER, ept, G ; of vtt, \x. only, with gr i^' [from Lc. v. s] : 
— all else, lat and gr, om. 

\ib. II (before ascendit) + tunc. So D alone of vg, with c only of vtt (not jw.) ; and no gr. [Note 
that D alone om nunc from end of verse lo, which probably accounts for insertion of tunc (but c retains 
nunc, as all gr, vvv).] Of gr, ADA, &c., have no conjunction here ; KABCL have olv after ave/Jv, 
and so n, ascendit ergo. 

\ib. 1 8 (before non uis) + tu. So too E (dim Mat), G; bcdefffz {fx.?, but erased); with gr D 
(and so cl) :— r,, with all else, lat and gr. om. 


' These are not numerous, nor (with the one exception above noted, v. 4) are 
they important. 

t i. IS (after dixi) — uobis. So too dur, and ER, Z, CT, B, &c. (and cl), also n and all vtt (except 
fit) ; with nearly all gr :— but dimQ, bnv, ept, mrt, AY, FMS, GH®, &c., ins (and so W-W), with 
gr D'X. Note that gr D Mat, i. 16— iii. 6 ; d, i. i— iii. 16. 

t ib. 20 (after non negauit) — [et'] con/essus est^^K So too dimR, e I /x,, with gr J^ : — all else ins. 

1 1. 24 (after qui missi fuerant) — erant. So too dur, and dimEQR, CT, ® ; and bfftlri : — against 
AY and all vg else, and c f {fi, fuerant ant [_sic']), which ins; and so edd; also acq (but om fuerant). 
Note that D, with dimER (but not dur), ©, gat, and I q, also om et (next verse) before interrogauerunt 
eum ; and that a e, with gr H, om these latter words along with et. Of gr, BL, and KAC write kox 
aTreo-TaX/iivoi ^crav, but i^'A'C'XA, &c., koI ol aTTco-TaX/ievot ^crav. 

fib. 27 (before non sum)— ego. So too ER, X, q; after gr KCL, &c. : — the rest, lat (including 
n fj.) and gr, ins. 

•ffii. 23 (after signa)— eius. So D alone of vg ; with abeflri; after gr M and some mss : — 
the rest, vg (and edd) and vtt (incl. fi), with gr, ins. 

tt iv. 35 (before ad messem) — iam. So also ept, and a m : — all vg else ins, and edd ; also most 
vtt, incl. ri ft, (but some of these place it after messem, and connect it with qui metit (next verse)). 
All gr likewise ins ^8rj (after OepKr/xov), but vary as to its connexion, — some joining it with o depC^mv, 
in place of /cai, which they om, as does also a. 

** v. 4. This whole verse D om, with dur, Z, and two or three other vg (and so W-W) ; also 
dflq ; after gr i^BCD, and a few mss. — But gr ALA, and most, ins ; all other vg (incl. all celt) ins 
likewise, but with much verbal variation. W-W (see their note) distinguish three principal forms of 
it ; (i) that of AY, F, AS, HX, ept (txt) mrt [and (nearly) of dim] ; (2) that of EQ, CT, G®IKOV, 
bnv, gat, and c 8 (so cl) ; (3) that of ept (mg), and MJ, R, and n, i^- Of the other vtt, a bffi give it 
a shorter form of (i), e in a longer form of same. 

f f vi. 42 (after dicit) — Mc. D alone of vg, also a dffi q ; with gr BCDL, &c., and most : — all vg 
else ins (and edd), also vtt b c efm r^ S /i, with gr XAA, &c. (oStos). 

If vii. 8 (after festum '*') — hunc. D alone of vg ; and ab c eff^ri; with gr i^'BDL and most : — 
nearly all vg else, arxAflq 8, ins, with gr SA and a few {ra.vri}v). (QR, and I p. om (by homoeotel.) hunc 
festum^'^^ ; and so a few gr mss). 

\\ ib. ib. (after festum'-'^'') — istum. So again D alone of vg, with b alone of vtt; after ms 69 
(alone of gr) : — all else ins istum (or hunc, as a c dfff^ 8) ; gr again, tavr^v. 

ib. 29 (after scio eum). D, and dur, with dimR, AY, AS, MZ, and many more (and edd) — also 
rj /«., and all vtt, ignore the sentence interpolated by EQ, bnv mrt, CT (also F partly"), and others 
(with two gr mss), from viii. 55 {et si dixero .... mendax, sed [or «/] scio eum). 

\ xii. 42 (before ex principibus) — et. So also dur, and dimER, BGJKVX, &c., and c efffi I /a 
[n hiat'\ : — but nearly all other vg ins et, with abdqh, and all gr. [Q Mat, xii. 28 — xiii. 20.] 

■f xiii. 26 (before respondit) — cui. So also dur, and dimEQR, Z, CT, &c. ; also nearly all vtt 
(incl. n) and gr : — but ept, AY, AS, FM, GH®, &c., ins; also /a. To like effect de, after gr D and 
mss 13 69 124 of <^ group, subjoin illi {ainS) to the verb. 


f xiv. 14 {after peh'erih's)—' me. So also ER, T; and adeff^qvi; after gr ADL, &c. :— dur, Q, 
and AY and the other vg (and edd) ins, and cfZ /«., with gr i^BA, &c. (dim, and h, om. verse). 

xvii. 7 (after dedisti tniht) — abs ie sunt (8) quia uerha quae dedisti mihi. So also (by homoeotel.) 
T, and rx (but corr. by interlin.). 

t ib. 1 9 (before sanctifico) — ego. So also M, and bceqrifi., with gr i^A, &c.— All else, lat and gr, ins. 

f xviii. 37 (after rex sum) — ego. So also ; a cff^ r, ; with gr KBL, few mss, including (of <t> group) 
13 69 124: — but all vg else, and b/q 8 [;«.?], ins, after gr AA, &c. (The initial ego of next clause 
has no doubt caused the omission.) 

xix. 35 (before uos credaiis) — et^*K So also dimE, M, G, also S /n, with gr EGA and most :— but 
dur, AY, and all vg else (and edd), ins ; also vtt, with gr i^ABL, &c. (but e om verse). 

t xxi. 3 (before exierunt) — et w. So also dim, ept (txt), GT, and adeqS, with gr BCDA, &c. ; — 
but dur, AY, &c., and all vg else (and edd), ins, also be/ri [/^ h'ai'], with gr AP. 

xxi. 17 (after amas me) — [«/] dicit ei dne tu omnia scis iu scis quia amo ie. D alone (by homxotel.) : — 
but dur, and dimR, r-i /*, om tu scis^'\ All else, lat and gr, ins, with slight variations. 

ft ib. 23 (after donee ueniam) — quid ad te. So D (alone of vg), with a e, and so gr J^, mss i, 22 : — 
but all lat and gr else ins ; E, gat, c further add tu me sequere, as in ver. 21. 


It will be noted that the examples under this head are more numerous than all 
those of the two preceding Subsections taken together. 

i. 14 (before gratiae) pleni (soil., unigeniti). So also dimR, ept (mg), and 8 /a (but neither A nor 
any other gr has jrX^pows) : — for plenum {scil., uerbum) of all other vg (and edd) ; also most vtt, except 
a e {plenus). Most gr (incl. A), irX^pij? {scil., \6yo<s) ; gr D, trXi/jpr] {scil., Sofav, = gloriam ; but no lat 
has plenam). [Note that n hiat, i. i to.i. 15 ; r, to v. 12. J 

ib. 47 (before hisraelita) uir. So also dimEQR, and even dur, also ept (mg) gat : — all else 
[qu., /u. ?] uere (gr, dXrjSios). 

*t ii. 4. mihi et tibi. So also dur, and dimEQR, and most vg and vtt (incl. n /a); with all gr, and 
so edd :— AY, and AS, FM, H, invert. 

tf iii. 5 (before /M«n'/) natus. D sol (vg), and f r^, with gr {yiwi)B'^: — all vg and vtt else 
(including m and /x.), renatus, and so edd. 

ib. 20 (before agit) male. So dimEQR, AY, AS, Z, CT, and nearly all vg (so cl), with h c dfl S /x ri : 
— but dur, ept, FM, G, and a few vg, mala (so W-W) ; and so eff^ q {a, praua), with gr (^aCXa). 

f ib. 36 (after ira dei) manebit. So also R, and e /j, {,b permanebit [r^ hiat']), also Iren. iv. xxxvii. 5, 
and others) : — all lat else, manet (so edd) ; (gr is ambiguous, some /^eVet, some /xtvil). [Our scribe 
apparently first wrote manet, and then altered / into bit.] 

iv. 21 (before hora) ueniet. So also dur, and EQ, ept, AY, AS, FMZ, CT, ®, &c., and nearly 
all vg (R, ueni) and vtt (incl. n /i): — but dimZ, with bd8, uenit (and so edd) ; gr, epxerai. 

f ib. 23 (before hora) ueniet. So also (of vg) A, M, © (R, ueniat), also aefffilqhfj.: — but dur, 
dimQ, AY, and all vg else (and edd), with bcdri, uenit; gr, epxerai (as in 21). (Note that bd 
(not 8) alone of vtt have uenit in both places, here and ver. 21 ; while DAM® alone of vg have ueniet 
in both.) 

ib. 43 (after inde) etfugit. So D alone ; CT, J, &c., et/uit (but with in galilea [or — am] following) : 
— but dur, dimQR, AY, and nearly all vg else (and edd), with 8/*, et abi[i]t (gr AA, &c., koX a-rr^XOiv); 
E, gat, et uenit. — But abd e/fft Iq [ri hiat], <;»?, with gr J^BCD, &c. 

ib. 4S (before quaefecerat) audiissent. So also bnv, X, and another, also /*; e, audierant: — all 
vg else (and edd), uidissent (and most vtt to like eifect) ; all gr, iiDpaKorei. 

v. 34 (before sed trans.) ueniet. So also dim Q, ept (mg), and AY, AS, &c. (R, ueniat) ; also 
beffftlqrirt^lli.: — but dur, with E, ept (txt) bnv mrt, FMZ, CT, GH, &c., c d, uenit (gr, cpp^erot) ; 
and so edd. 

X 2 

clxviii . INTRODUCTION. 

V. 24. transeat. So dimR :— AY, AS, FM, ®I, &c., ept mrt, and effjr.jx, transiet [r„ transiaf]: 
—V and a few, d/, transiit (so edd) ; dur, EQ, bnv, CT, G, &c., and he, transit; q S, iransibit 
[_qu., = — iuit or — let ?]. All gr, ii.irafisj3y]Ke.v. 

vi. 3. abut. So D alone of vg; with adff^l (gr i^D, two mss, air^X^ei') :— dur, dimQR, AY, 
and the rest, subiUy (most gr, avriX6e.v), with crtSfi,; or ascendit, G, be/qrx- 

lb. 23. gratias agentes deo. So also R, ept, rj ; similarly dur, dimEQ, AY, AS, FMZ, CT, H0, &c., 
and c, 8 (altern.) /*, ^m/wj a^««to ^/uwzWo :— but G and others, gratias agente domino (so edd), and to 
like effect b/ff^lqry {quern henedixit dm), and 8' {gratificante dm) ; most gr, incl. A, e^x'^pto-T^crayTos tov 
KvpCov ; (but gr D om, and so d, also a «). 

ib. S3 (before «z'/aw) hahebitis. So also dur, and dim, &c., AY, and nearly all vg (and cl), with 
vtt (incl. mry^\l r^ hianf] :— but HZ, habetis, also W-W ; with gr (f-x^ri) (Q writes habetis bi [«c] ; 
^2, habitis). 

t z3. 54 (before uitam) habebit. So (consistently with last verse) D alone of vg (and of vtt, b m) :— 
all vg else, and edd, with vtt (incl. ri /a), habet; gr, Ix"- 

X vii. s- crediderunt. So D alone of vg, and d q, with gr DL {iTrCiTTevcrav) : — dur, dimQR, AY, and 
all else, and r-^ ft., credebant ; with all other gr (cTrio-Ttuov). 

ib. 6 (after nondum) uenit. So also AY, AS, Z, a d riX—Anx, dimQ, most vg (and edd), with 
h cfff'ilq, aduenit (gr, irapco-Tiv) ; R, /a, adhuc uenit ; «, «</«/ ; 8, adhuc est. 

ib. 34. ^w[a>n/w. So dur, and dimEQR, ept, bnv, AY, AS, FZ, CT, G, and most vg ; also 
nearly all vttS a 3 c ?//» / ^ r, 8 /*— after gr n (not A), ms 69 (^Tyr^re) ; and so W-W :— but MC, H©, 
mrt, and a few, with d, quaeretis, and so cl ; after nearly all gr (incl. A as well as D), ^rjT^crerc. 

ib. 36 (after dixit) quaeritis. Authorities (incl. edd) nearly as under ver. 34, but H changes sides, 
as also d [not gr D] : — of gr, only mss 13 69 (of <^ group) have ^r/Teire. 

ib. 48. credit. So Y, J, and d fi (gr KD, ■jrio-Tevet) • — a-" else, dur, dim. A, &c., and vtt (incl. r^) 
credidit, and so edd ; most gr, €irccrT€vcrev. 

f viii. 25 (before et loquor) quod. So dimE, ept (mg), gat, M, G©, acfffilqnr,.hy^\ and so gr 
read o n :— but dur, with QR, ept (txt), AF, AS, Z, CT, HIJOX, &c., and b, quia (gr, oti), and so 
W-W: — YKV, mrt, and cl (also e), qui; d, quoniam, others variously. 

f f ib. 39 (after abra\_ka'y) essetis. D alone of vg, with ab c efl q r^S /x; after gr CXFA, &c. (^re) : 
— but all vg else, estis (and edd) ; and so dff^ ri, with gr JiJBDL [A hiat'], ia-re. 

ib. ib. (at end) feceretis? D alone of vg, /x. of vtt ; R, abed efl q [n, face — ] S, faceretis (gr, 
cn-otetTe[av]) : — but dur, dim, &c., AY, and all vg qX^q, facile; also ^j rj (with gr B, Troieire), — and 
so edd. 

*f ix. 3. manifestentur opera. So also Z, IJKV, mrt (so edd), also b c I h ft.; and again dur, and 
dimR, ept (mg), manifestarentur opera [r^, — rent opera"] ; after all gr, <j>avtpa>6'g to. epya : — but EQ, C, 
BG®0, a e fffi, r-^, manifestetur opera ; and T, d q, manifeslaretur opera ; and again, AY, AS, FM, ept 
(txt), HX, manifestetur opus. — Apparently, the original lat was that of a efffi t\, meant as an exact 
reproduction of the gr (sing, verb with plur. neut. noun). This was grammatically corrected — on one 
hand in q, A, &c., by substitution of sing, noun ; — on the other in b, dur, D, &c., of plur. verb. 

f X. 5. non sequuntur [or secuntur]. So dur, and dimEQR, ept, bnv mrt, Z, CT, IJ, &c., most vtt 
(incl. I r^S /*), and cl : — but AY, AS, FM, G, H©, and d, non sequentur (so W-W); gr, ou //.^ d/coXov- 
6-i)(TQvcTiv, ABDA (though not 8), &c. ; — B^qaoicriv, HI,, &c. [At x. 3, r^ def, finally.] 

j[ib. ib. fugiunt. For/«^!'i?«/ (authorities divided nearly as last ; \>'a\,Y , fugiant): — all gr, "^cvfovrat. 

f xi. 29. surrexit. So dimQR, ept (mg), mrt, Z, G, &c., most vtt (incl. 8 jx [r, hiat ; also q, x. 11 — 
xi. 38]), after gr J^BCDL, &c. {rjyipOr)) : — but dur, with AY, and most vg, /, surgil, after gr AC 'A, &c. 
{iy€ip€Tai, — but 8 has perf.) ; and so edd. 

ib. 44. ligatus manus et pedes. So D (txt), with gr AA (8£8e/x,€vos rets x^pa.<i koi tovs iro8os) ; but 
D (mg), ligatus manihus et pedibus, and so (but transp. m. and /.) dim, 8 (also e, but om ligatus) : — 
dur, with AY and most, and b c dfff^ I, ligatus (a, alligatus) pedes et manus, and so edd (after nearly 
all gr, 8e8£/i. t. iroSas k. t. x«'pas). — But EQR, ept (mg), / r^ p., ligatis pedibus et manibus. 

' Note that_^2 is wrongly reckoned as an exception : see O.L. Bibl. Texts, No. V (Buchanan), in lac. 
* Qu,, ioM feceritis ox faceretis ? 


fxi. \']. faciemus. So also dimEQ, M, CT, BH®, &c., and abce/rih jx (with one gr ms, 249 
[not A], TToiijcro/tev) : — but dur, R, ept bnv mrt, AY, AS, FZ, and most, with dffi I, facimus ; with 
all gr else (irotoi5/^£v), and so edd. 

xii. 7. sinite. So also dimR, M, BJ (and cl), and 8 {a, dimittite), — but dur, EQ, AY, and all vg 
else, and hfit., sine (so W-W), or dimitte, as cdefft [/n hiant'] ; all gr (incl. A), at^cs. 

t ib. 8. habebitis'-'^K So also dimEQR, A, CT, BK and a few, bcehfx : — but dur, with dim, ept, mrt, 
AY, (F) MZ, S, GH®IJ, &c., and afffi^, hdbetis (all gr, Ixert, except DA, which owi), and so edd. 

f lbs ib. ' habebitis ("'. So also dimEQR and other vg as above, also ept (mg), (F), H®, and vtiace^ jj. 
(3 ri om) : — but dur, AY, and the rest, and edd, habeiis (gr as above). 

X ib. 28. filium. So D, with E only of vg [Q Mat, xii. zo — xiii. 20] ; with gr LX, and mss i and 
(of 4> group) 13 346, (no vt) : — all else, nomen. 

f xiii. I {after franseai, or — iref) de. So D (txt), with dimER, ept (mg), acrf^/i/ri ju :— but D 
(mg) ex, with dur, AY, and all vg else, and bf%. (D (txt) om hoc, but D (mg) supplies.) 

t ib. 8 (before partem) habebis. So also dimER, ept, bnv mrt, M, T, B®, &c. (so cl), also cefff^ m 
qS/j.; but not A nor any gr : — dur, AY, AS, FZ, C, HK, &c., and ab dlr^, habes (and so W-W) ; 
with all gr (lx"«)- 

ib. 10 (after indiget) nissi pedes lauare. D alone of vg, with e f, also 8 (but om nisi); so too a q 
(with lauandi for lauare) ; and to like effect A, CT, IV, mrt, with b ff^l m, nisi uf pedes lauet (so cl) ; with 
gr ABCL, &c., £1 /i^ [ijJTois ttoSm vC^acrOai) :— but dur, and dim, ept (txt) bnv gat, Y, AS, FMZ, GH®, 
&c., and c 11, ut lauet only {om nisi and pedes), and so W-W (gr X, viif/aa-Oai only). ER, ept (mg), have 
ut iterum lauet ; again, d, after gr D, has caput lauare nisi pedes tantum [r, h'at^. 

xiv. 17. quia nescit eum. D alone (vg) ; but dimEQR, gat, and ri fi, quia (or quoniam) non uidet eum, 
nescit{eum'] : — dur, A, and all else (and edd), quia non uidet eum nee scit eum ; with all gr. 

ib. ib. cognoscetis. So dimEQR, ept bnv, C and some others (and cl), also S (but not A) ^•. — dur, 
mrt, and AY, AS, FM, B, and most (so W-W), cognoscitis (Z, TX cognouistis) ; also b/q ; most other vtt 
likewise pres. ; — so a, agnoscitis, ceff^, nostis, n, scitis, &c. [/ Mat, xiii. 34 — xiv. 23]); all gr, yivuxTKtTf. 

t ib. 23 {a&Qx pater meus) dilegit^'^^ [or diligit']. So D (mg) [corr. for seruabit (txt)], dur, also dim 
QR, ept, FM, S, Z, CT, H, &c., most vtt {ab d fff^ I qrihii.):— h\xi E, mrt, AY, A, G0, &c., diliget 
(and so edd), also c V m {e, diligebit); all gr (incl. DA), dyaTrijo-et. — Note that all agree in diligit ^^'> (or 
dilegit) in both the places where the word occurs also in ver. 21. 

*\ib. ib. mansionem. So dimEQR, many vg (and edd), and most vtt {b e/ff^lq^; d, habitaculum ; 
a c diverge [ri Mat'\) ; all gr, fiov^v : — but dur, ept bnv, AY, AS, FMZ, BH®T, &c., also /t, mansiones. 

f XV. 6 (after colligent, or — unt) eum [sc, palmitem'] .... ardet. So dimER, TV, also rj 8 {d e q 
likewise sing., illud, q writes conburetur, for ardet) ; gr XDLA, &c., and mss i, and all of 1^ group, avTo 
[sc, KXriixa]) ; and so cl : — but Q, gat, and all vg else, dur, AY, &c. (and so W-W), also vtt {a b cfffi /x 
[/ Mat, ver. 3-15]) plur. {eos or ea, and ardent or — ebunt) ; gr ABL, &c., aira. 

\ib. 7 {quodcunque uolueritis) petite et. So D alone of vg, also bdefftq^; with gr ABDL, &c., 
air-qcratrOc (or — dai) koi: — dur, AY, and most vg, and edd, petetis et (gr J^A and most, atTjyo-ecr^e, or 
— 6ai) KoC; ox petitis et, as R, F, T, BGX; or et petetis, bnv, H ; again, Q, Z, O, mrt, et petieritis; or 
again, petere (with uolueritis before or after)', a cf; dim, quodcumq ; petieritis in nomine meo ; r^, quodcumq; 
uolueritis {om pet.). 

f ib. 13 (after maiorem) hanc. So dur, and EQR, ept (mg), FM, SZ, T, and a few vg; also aeq ^t. 
(no gr) : — dim with ept (txt), bnv mrt, AY, A, C, B, &c., and edd, b cfff^ 8, hac {d, huius) \_r^ Maf] ; 


ib. 27. testimonium perMbetis. So dur, and dimQR, with AY and most (and so W-W) ; also 
a cfl 8 /A (and to like effect d e r^, with all gr (/ia/jTvpetTs) :— but E, CT, H®JK (and cl), also b fft 
(and to like effect m q), testim. perMbebitis. 

t xvi. 9. crediderunt. So dimEQ, gat mrt, Z, CT and a few, also a c efq 8 /n (so cl) ; — with two 
or three gr mss (eVtcrTevo-av) : — but dur, with R, AY, F, and most, b d ff^ I r^, credunt (so W-W) ; with 
most gr MSS (incl. A) and most mss {irKmyova-iv). [I def., xvi. 13 to end of Gospel.] 

^ This infinitive follows the itacism (aiT^o-a[«]o-6at) of gr AD, A. 


t xvi. 21 (before puerum) peperit. So dur, dimEQR, ept mrt, S, Z, CT, and a few, h c q ^i. : — but 
bnv, AY, FM, B and most (so edd), also dffi r^, pepererit (gr, yeci'ijo-g) ; G, and a S, genuerit {ef, naius 
fuerit infans). 

ih. 22. habelitis. So Q, ept, mrt, AY, F, S, BGH, &c., also abderi] gr i^'ADL, &c., efere (to 
like effect dim {contristahemini)) : — but dur, and ER, MZ, CT, cfff^qh})., habetis, and so edd; gr 
KBCA, &c., Ix««. 

t ib. 23 (before quicquam) interrogabitis. So dur, and QR, ept bnv mrt, Z, BKVX, &c., also 
abcff^q (r, ?) S ;«, with gr, IptoT^Vcrc (or — 7;t«) :— but E, AY, FMS, CT, GHOIJ, &c., and df, 
rogdbiiis ; and so edd ; (dim om. verse). 

tt ib. 27, 28. a deo paire exiui. So D only (vg), and ^2 only (vt), similarly dim [a deo exiui palre), 
T, b {a deo exiui), and (with other variations) ER, a « n S ; so again, gr D, d, a palre exiui. All these 
write exiui but once. — But dur, and Q, AY and most vg, and c/q, also ii (with et before exiut^^'>), write 
exiui twice, — thus ; (27) a deo exiui, (28) exiui a patre; and so all gr, except D [_^j Mat, xvii. 16 — 
xviii. g]. 

t xviii. 3. principibus. D (txt) with M alone [Q def. xvii. 13 to end] ; a b c/q n, principibus sacer- 
dotum : — D (mg), with dur, dim, &c., AY and all vg else, and ij., poniificibus ; gr, rSi/ apxiepeotv [gr D h'ai, 
xviii. 13 — XX, 13 ; d, xviii. 2 — xx. 13 J. 

t ib. 14. consilium dedit. So dur, ER, Z, CT, BJ, &c., b cfffi q jj. [_e Mat, xviii. 12-25] '• — ept, AY, 
AS, FM, GHOIKO, bnv mrt, &c., a n, dederat, and so edd ; gr, o-u/i/SouXeuo-as. 

^ib. 17 (after [«] hominis) illius. So D (txt), with mrt, a: — D (mg) with all vg else, istius (so 
edd) ; most vtt (3 cfff^ q r^ S), huius, /x, ^z'aj ; gr, tovtov. 

ib. 18. cahfaciebant. So also dur (but writes quale/ac), and R, ept, M, X, c//.; also (adding se), 
dim, CT, B©J mrt, /" (and so cl) ; again, q, calefaciebantur ; ri, calefacientes se: — but AY, AS, FZ> 
HIKOV, calefiebant (so W-W). Of other vtt, a bfft om, S gives the two readings (as altern.). Note 
that all vg read calefaciens se in the following sentence. 

xix. 6 (after dicenies) cruci adfige \eum'\ {bis). So D alone, for crucifige crucifige \eum\, of all vg 
else ((7, cruci eum figerent ; e r^, crucifigaiur). 

ib. 16 (at end) duxerunt. So also dim, mrt, AY, AS, H®, /"S (R, dixerunt), with gr ^A, and many 
{yfyayov) : — but dur, and E, ept bnv, CT, G, and most (so edd), also /«., eduxerunt, q, adduxerunl ; 
gr A, &c., airriyayov. Most Vtt (al c efft n r,) om, with gr BLX (others vary much). 

ib. 27 (at end) in suam. So dur, and dimER, ept (txt) mrt, Z, H®0 (no vt) :— nearly all else 
in sua, except e [secum), r, (z'« suis) ; gr, cis to. i'Sio. 

f XX. I. ab hostio monumenti. So also dimE, dfr^; with gr ^ [D hiaf] and a few mss (aTro rrj% 
6vpai Tov /jLVfifiiiov) : — against all else, lat (incl. /t), and gr (ex t. fivrj/jLetov). 

ib. 2 (at end) eum. So D (txt) with all vg else (and edd), and most vtt (incl. r, /j.) : — D (mg), 
ilium, with a b (all gr, airov). 

f ib. s (before possita) uidit. So dur, and dimER, ept', IJKOV, b c/ff^ q h jx {om to uidit in 
ver. 6) ; and so cl:— but ept (txt), bnv, mrt, AY, AS, FMZ, CT, BGH®X, ader^, uidet (so W-W); 
gr, ^XeVet. 

f ib. 6. uidit. So again dur, with dimER, ept, mrt, Y, F, T, H®IJKV (and so cl), also a b cffft 
q 8 :— but ept (txt), A, AS, MZ, C, BGOX, de [n hiaf], uidet (so W-W) ; gr, eeupei. 

ib. 9 (before scripturam) sciebat. So E, ept (txt), gat, AZ, AS, CT, HKV, b cff^ ? S [/x ?], {e r,, 
nouerat) ; with gr i^, flSct : — but dur, dimR, and ept (mg), bnv mrt, YFMZ', BG, &c. (and edd), a d f, 
sciebant, with most gr (^'Seto-av). 

ib. 14 (before ihm) uidit. So dur, and dimER, ept' bnv mrt, FM, T, GH®IKV, cql (so cl) :— 
but ept' (txt), AY, AS, Z, C, BOX, abde/ffiriij.{h\it corr.), uidet (and so W-W); gr, 6iu>pti. 

ib. 23. remittentur. So dimR, mrt, gat. A, S, X, eff^qr^p. (A, remissa sunt; a, remissa eruni; 
d, dimittentur), with gr K, dc^e^^o'eTai :— but dur, and bnv, Y, FMZ, CT.BGH®, &c., remittuntur (so 
edd) ; b cfh ; all gr else, d^jieavTai or acj>UvTai. 

t ib. 25 (before clauorum) figuram. So dur, and dimR, ept bnv mrt, Y, FM, S, Z, BIOX, bcder^l 
\_ff^ p. hiant'] : — but E, and A, A, M'Z' C, G®KV, fixuram (so edd) ; gr, tov rvVoj/ {a, uestigium ; fq, 
locum \_qu., does this represent a reading t. tottov ? (as in following sentence)]. 


xxi. 12. discumbentium. So E, ept bnv mrt, AY, FZ, S, CT, BOIKO [A def., xxi. 8 to end], and 
most (and so cl), also c, and /* (but expunct.) : — but M, GH, Iff^ (and so W-W), disceniium (gr, rS>v 
IxadrjT&v, — see above, Sect. IV, p. clxii (under Lc. xix. 37) ; and to like effect dur, dimR, a dfn jj!, 
ex {de) discipuHs ; e, dudpulorum \ji Mat] ; (8, discumbentium discipulorum). 

+ ib. 20. tradet. So dur, [dim hiat'] ER, mrt, M, CT, GH® and most (so cl), abcffih /:— but ept, 
AY, S, B (so W-W), n fi, tradii (gr, o irapaSiSous), and so q, prodit; F, and df, tradidit {e diverges). 

ib. 22 (after iTs) sic. So dur, [dim hiaf] ER, ept, mrt, AY, F', S, CT, BGH'OIK, &c. (and cl) ; 
^ f r, /«, [a hiat'] : — but M, and one or two vg, e/g 8, si (gr, eav') : — again, bnv, F, HV, and a few others 
(so W-W), with ^2, read si sic {d, si eum uolo sic manere), gr D, iav avTov diXw /ieVeiv ovtios. 

ib. 23. sic. This word is attested nearly as in ver. 22, but with some changes of supporters, — 
by dim, and bnv, F, H (but not G), and by a ; si, by d and gr D, but not M ; si sic, by M, G, but not 
J^3, which om ; edd as ver. 22. 

Subsection iv.— DOUBLETS. 

(i) The subjoined examples are due for the most part to combination of vt 
with vg renderings. 

The three following may be placed together, as relating to the rendering of the gr tSios : — 

(a) i. 1 1 (before uenit) in sua propria (eis to iSia). So also dimE, gat ([n r^ hiant'] jj., in sua 
propria), also b effit, and so in Iren. (lat), Cypr., Ambr., Lcf., and Augustine [ap. Sabat.]. — But dur, 
Q, AY, and all vg else write propria only," as also cf; vtt a q, and some early Fathers, sua only 
(S gives both, as alternatives). Thus D here subjoins a vg rendering to one attested only by vtt. 

{b) v. 18 { patrem) suum proprium (the latter supplied in mg). Here dur, dimQ, AY, and all 
MSS else, vg and vtt (incl. m n /*), suum only (gr, tStov) ; but proprium is read by some early Fathers 
(Ambrose, Hilary, &c.); the latter once writes proprium suum [ap. Sabat.J. 

{c) X. 3 (before oues) suas proprias. So D alone of vg, with a 8 /a of vtt : — all vg else, proprias only ; 
and so vt_/; bcdeffilqri, suas only; all gr, to 1810. [Note that in verse 4, D, with all vg, renders 
the same gr hy proprias only, though all vtt (except //a, proprias) have suas there.] Here (as i. 11), 
the vg rendering is subjoined to vt. 

(2) Other examples are of various character ; but mostly awkward attempts 
at combining discrepant readings : — 

vi. 42 (after quomodo) ergo nunc. So also dimR: — all vg else, ergo only; also vtt (incl. r^mh /x), 
■except a e, which om both words. Of gr, f^ADLA and nearly all, read oxiv : — but BCT subst vvv, 
supported apparently by no lat. 

ib. 63. nihil prodest quicquam. So D alone of vg, and /u. of vtt. All vg else, and /, non prodest 
^uicquam; abde/qr^, nihil prodest only (but 8, nihil uel non) ; gr, ovk m^iKii ovSev. Thus our text, 
retaining nihil of vt, superfluously adds quicquam of vg. 

xi. 2. extersit pedes eius capillis eius suls. So D alone ; all vg else, and vtt, om eius^'^'^ (ju. diverges). 
The scribe, perceiving the awkward ambiguity of the second eius, has added suis, hut forgotten to 
■expunge the word he had first written (gr, ovtov .... avTijs). 

xiv. 10. pater autem qui in me manens. No vg else ins qui; bem also om : — but vtt a c d f ff^i, q r-i 
'[//* Aza«/],read (better) qui in me manet (o 8e ttot^p o hi t/iol /xevoji'). D retains the qui of vt, but 
combines it wrongly with manens of vg ; dim om (after in me est (ver. 10) uerba quae — in me est (end 
-of ver. 11)). 

' There is, however, evidence that sic may here be an archaic or provincial equivalent for si ( = lav). 
See Rendel Harris, Study of Cod. Bezae, p. 281. 

2 This rendering misses the opposition — to i8ia ... 01 t8ioi {sui). 


xvi. 13. docehit uos in omnem ueritatem. In this reading (i) our MS is countenanced by dur, as well 
as by R, apt ; and also by AY, FM, S, GX ; and so 8 /^, and (with ablat. after in) c (similarly /, in 
ueritale omnia). But (2), dimEQ, and A, Z, CT, H0 and many others om in (and so edd) ; and to like 
effect m (with disseret) ; — after gr, tLrjyricr€Ta.L v/mv rrjv akijOeiav ■rao-av, which, though not in any gr MS 
or ms, is cited by Euseb., and by Cyril Hierus.' The usual gr (AB, &c., also A, but 8, docelit), 
oSijyiytrei v/iSs €is tt^v dXi;0£iav -iracrav, or (i^DL) . , . . cV t]} aX-qOuq, ^da-ri, is represented (3) by vtt a b ff^ 
{deduce!), or d/qr^ [diriget) uos in omnem ueritatem {or ablat.).' The reading (i) of our text and its 
supporters is an ill-devised compromise between these two, (2) and (3). 

Section VI. — General Survey of the foregoing. 

A general examination of the examples of the variants offered by our ms as 
presented in the foregoing Sections II-V, will be found to confirm what has 
been said in advance (Sect. I, Subsect. iii, pp. cxxxvi-ix supr.) of the form of 
Vulgate text exhibited by the ms and its congeners, and will lead to some further 
observations on their common character. 

In their great critical edition of the Vulgate Latin New Testament, the 
Editors (W-W), after having distinguished the group of mss DELQR as the 
"Celtic Family," and ranked it in their Classis II (tom. i, fasc. i, pp. xi-xiii), in 
their Epilogus (fasc. v, pp. 713, 714) assign to that group its distinctive features 
under the following five heads: — (i) an underlying basis of Vulgate text of 
sound and early type; (2) indications (especially in DLR) of correction made 
after a Greek text ; (3) frequent intermixture of Old Latin readings ; (4) prone- 
ness to redundant words and phrases, mostly trivial, often drawn from parallel 
passages into one Gospel from another; and (5) verbal inversions. — It will be 
convenient to follow these heads in our inquiry into the character of the text of 
D and the rest, as manifested in the examples collected in our summaries, of 
Sectt. II-V. 

1. To begin with the last-mentioned. — Variants that come under heads 
(4) and (5) are but sparingly admitted into these summaries. It has not seemed 
worth while to encumber our pages with such, except in cases where any of them 
illustrates some tendency on the part of the scribe of our D, or forms a point 
of contact between its text and that of some other ms, Vulgate or Old Latin. 
Occasionally, but not often, we have recorded harmonistic variants (as, e.g., those 
noted pp. cxlvi-vii supr.). But for the most part we have passed by variants of 
these minor kinds, as being of no critical significance, but due merely to the 
scribe's desire (in itself commendable) to furnish a text for edification, easy to be 
followed by an imperfectly instructed reader of his handiwork — or listener to it 
when read aloud. To form an idea of the extent to which the text of D is 
affected by these small alterations, it is necessary — and worth while as a matter 
of curiosity — to read a column or two of our printed text ; and compare it with 
the printed Vulgate or with the text of W-W. 

2. As regards head (i), — the fundamental nature of the presence of the proper 

' See Tisch. in loco. ''■ Similarly, e, inducei uobis omnem ueritatem.. 


Vulgate element in our text, — it is well and largely attested by the examples 
collected in our summaries, though by no means displayed there in its fullness. 
For these summaries have been drawn up (as definitely stated above, pp. cxliii, 
cxlv), primarily in order to record the divergences of D from the normal Vulgate 
text, and therefore, in respect of the extent of its agreements with that standard, 
the evidence they present, though abundant, is necessarily incomplete. Yet that 
evidence, given as it is thus incidentally, proves when we examine it as set forth 
in the examples noted all through Sectt. II- V, to be so considerable in amount as 
to mark the prevalence of the Vulgate element everywhere in the Gospel text of 
our D and its kindred mss., — though nothing but an actual inspection of the text 
itself as exhibited in the present volume (or of that of some other of the Celtic 
Group) can adequately show the predominance in it of that element, as the 
fundamental fact which marks it as a true though not unmixed form of Vulgate. 
(And the same is to be said of all the other members of the group.) Reading 
its text, one may often go on from page to page without meeting any notable 
deviation from the familiar Vulgate (except those petty instances which we have 
referred to under heads (4) and (5)), — though, as we shall point out under 
head (3), this even tenor of text seldom proceeds far without sudden interruption. 
Moreover, as to the goodness of this basal Vulgate text, our summaries, so 
far as they go, confirm the judgment of W-W. The examples marked *, though 
not conspicuous in quantity, in quality are remarkable. They are for the most 
part readings well attested by other sound evidence and approved by critical 
judgment, and as such admitted by W-W into their text, against the authority of A, 
and sometimes of Ciassis I unanimously. — ^We have above called attention (p. clxiv) 
to a point of the highest critical importance, in which (J oh. v. 4) D is the leading 
witness relied on by them as having preserved the authentic Vulgate text where it 
had been lost, even by A and other most authoritative witnesses of Ciassis 1} 

Here it is to be further pointed out that in the places where D and its kindred thus retain the 
best Vulgate text, — and notably in the instance above referred to— they will be found to follow the 
lead of the unique Irish Vulgate ms. of the Gospels {"dur"), (Cod. Durmach, the " Book of Burrow" — 
see above, pp. cxxxviii, cxxxix), — Celtic, as being written in Ireland (or lona) by an Irish hand, but not 
as regards the type of its text, —which stands apart from the Celtic group, not only as being earlier than 
any of them, but in presenting a text agreeing in the main (except where it differs for the better as 
above) with that of Ciassis I, and free with rare exception from the intrusion of the Old Latin element 
with which, as the main characteristic of the Celtic group, we are about to deal. — We have given the 
evidence of " dur" with the fullness due to its importance : it is not included by W-W in either of 
their Classes, and is referred to by them but seldom in their Apparatus.^ 

1 Of other like instances, one of the most notable is its rejection (in common with dimLR, and a few 
other vg and vtt), after dur, of the interpolation in Mt. xxvii. 35 {ui in^leretur .... sortem), which is 
admitted by AY, &c., and by ri r-i /t, and most vtt. 

*Dr. Abbott, in his Evangeliorum Versio Antehieronym., has given some account of Cod. Durmach, 
in his Praefatio (pp. xviii, sqq.), where he justly describes its text as "fere cum Amiatino convenientem, 
non ^aucis tamen erroribus," and he has given a full collation of it. In the absence of a complete 
edition of the contents of this MS. (which is much to be desired), this collation will suffice to convince anyone 
who inspects it of the high value of the text, and of the close affinity subsisting between it and that of A 
(and other MSS. of Ciassis I). Its errors will be found to be mostly of a superficial sort, obvious blunders 
easy of correction, while in its points of difference from A its readings not seldom commend themselves as 
preferable to those of that famous MS., and in point of fact agree more closely with those adopted by 
W-W in their text, which may now be safely accepted as the standard Vulgate. 



3. Setting aside for the moment the head (2) of W-W, it is convenient here 
to consider next their head (3), the intermixture in the Celtic text of the Old 
Latin element. This feature, being the main cause of the deviation of that text 
from the standard of Classis I, is necessarily prominent in our summaries, as well 
as in the Apparatus of W-W. It meets us in D, and in each and all of the group, 
everywhere prevalent though nowhere predominant, never superseding the 
Vulgate as basis, but usually showing itself rather as something superadded or 
substituted incidentally in a text into which it has entered as an extraneous 
element. Farther, the presence of this intermixture, though universal in the 
group and in each member of it, is by no means uniformly manifested, in D or 
in any one of them — still less, in the group as a whole. This irregularity of the 
presence of the Old Latin element will be found in our summaries to affect D 
(and its kindred texts) in two respects. — {a) The Old Latin variants are, in 
each MS., unevenly distributed, sometimes occurring in close sequence page after 
page, then followed by a nearly continuous interval (sometimes quite a long one, 
as noted above under (i)) of relatively pure Vulgate text. — {b) The character of 
the intruded Old Latin readings is indefinitely various, — some belonging to this, 
some to that, of the recognized Old Latin types, — earlier or later, African or 
European. — Moreover, when the several mss. of the group are compared inter se, 
they prove to vary, in both these respects, (a) and (6), each from each and all the 
rest, as much as each varies internally. Nothing of uniformity is to be found in 
detail, yet the presence of this element is apparent throughout them all. As 
regards the manner of its prevalence, no two of the members agree with anything 
of consistency or continuousness, yet no one of them is without something of 
special affinity here and there to each of the others ; each and all share in this 
common characteristic of the group. — See the examples marked f (and especially, 
for D, those marked ft) i" the summaries. 

Hence it follows of course that, inasmuch as (for the most part) every intruded 
Old Latin reading displaces something of the basal Vulgate,' this irregularity of 
intermixture of the secondary and extraneous element affects the due predomi- 
nance (above noted) of the primary and proper element, and causes it to appear 
at a disadvantage, in an interrupted and partial form. 

Such, then, being the character of the text of D and its group, as disclosed by 
examination of our summaries, we are led to recur to the suggestion already 
thrown out, that a text so described must have come into being not by any 
deliberate process of derivation or construction, but as the product of a common 
method, — or rather a common way of working unmethodically and without system, 
pursued by two or three (or more) generations of scribes or editors — probably a 
school of such, connected probably by bonds of common race or abode — supplied 

> In our summaries it will be noted that several examples bear the double mark.*t These are readings 
more or less fully attested by vt evidence, which are also attested by such evidence of vg MSS, that W-W 
have accepted them as readings retained by Jerome in his text (though other vg copies, even A in not a few 
instances, have rejected them). What is said above of Old Latin readings " intruded" into the Vulgate 
text, does not apply to such examples as these, which are readings originally belonging to some form of 
Old Latin, that have held their ground and passed into the Vulgate,— by retention, not by reintroduction. 


with like materials ; exemplars apparently of Jerome's Vulgate in an early and 
authentic form, together with still earlier and often imperfect copies (even frag- 
ments of worn-out copies) of the older Latin version or versions, in divers of its 
manifold shapes. And the internal evidence of the indications thus yielded by 
these Celtic texts when studied, agrees closely with the known external facts 
concerning DELQR and dim (as above stated in Sect. I, pp. cxxxvii, cxxxviii), 
that they are mss. written in the eighth and ninth centuries, in Celtic countries or 
by Celtic calligraphers, working in regions where, within that period, such copies 
of the Latin Gospels — ^both the earlier and the later — were forthcoming. 

In its deviations into the Old Latin, our D manifests no special tendency to follow any one or 
more of the known texts in preference; but two negative remarks are to be made. — (i) Its coinci- 
dences with the Irish Old Latin texts (ri r^ fi.), singly, or collectively, or in binary combination, though 
frequent, are perhaps less so than might be expected a priori> — (2) The very well-marked type of Old 
Latin, that of Cod. Bezae (gr D and its lat rf), is relatively rare in our ms. ; and its interpolations,* 
so conspicuous especially in the Third Gospel, are absent from our text with hardly an exception (see 
pp. cliv, clvi, clviii (2) ; also, as to Bezan omissions, p. clix (4)). This fact is all the more remarkable, 
inasmuch as in the Acts, as we shall see in Sect. VII, the Bezan variants, which in that Book are so 
large and numerous, abound in our D. 

4. The remaining character — the presence in the text of corrections made 
directly from the Greek — assigned under head (2) by W-W to the Celtic group, 
seems not to be adequately attested by the evidence they rely on. The examples 
they adduce {fasc. v, Epilogus, p. 714) are few, and our summaries appear to yield 
but scanty additions to their number.' Some are variants which can be shown to 
have come into the Celtic text through an Old Latin medium from the Greek*; 
most, if not all, are petty, usually affecting a single word or phrase, and that a 
trivial one ; many are quite possibly mere instances of chance coincidence 
between the Celtic Latin and some form of the Greek. No decisive instance of 

1 The examples in which our D is supported by n n /x, collectively, in binary combination, or singly 
(whether with or without other Old Latin evidence), are of importance and deserve careful study. But, as 
regards r\ (Cod. Uss. I.) the mutilated condition in which it has reached us (as is painfully apparent in 
Dr. Abbott's invaluable edition of its text — see p. cxlii suj>r.) lamentably limits the extent within which it is 
available. As to ra (Uss. II.) the state of things is still less satisfactory, for (apart from the great g-aps 
in its text) there is serious doubt whether it is entirely, or only in parts (and if so, in what parts), to be 
reckoned as an Old Latin rather than a mixed Vulgate text. Dr. Abbott has appended a complete collation 
of this text to his edition of Uss. I. (Pars II, pp. 819-863), and has noted the instances in which n n agree.— A 
like doubt attaches in some degree to the use of //. (Cod. Moling.). In his Chapiters on the Book of Mulling, 
Dr. Lawlor has shown convincingly that this MS., which exhibits the Gospels complete, incorporates two 
large fragments of Old Latin (Mt. xxiv. 12 to xxviii. 4 ; Lc. iv. 5 to ix. 56) into a text which is otherwise 
Vulgate of Celtic type. In our summaries we have cited both these MSS. (Uss. 11 and Moling.) by the 
symbols r^ //., among the Old Latin texts, all through, not merely in the passages distinguished by Dr. Lawlor 
as Old Latin. But the student must not let himself be confident in reckoning ju. as an Old Latin witness 
except in those passages ; and as regards r^, he must be cautious about relying on it as Old Latin, except 
in the combination n r%, which is not infrequent. In case of the combination r% /x, which is notably 
frequent, each of the pair strengthens the claim of the other to be counted as an Old Latin witness. 

=* For examples in Mt. of Bezan interpolations rejected by our D, see Mt. xxiv. 42, xxvii. 28, ib. 32 su;pr., 
pp. cxlvii, cxlviii. 

' See the examples marked % in our summaries, of variants in D supported by Greek, but by no known 
Latin evidence. Those adduced by W-W (as above) are in note 3 and note 5, p. 714. One of their 
examples, however, is wrongly alleged {agros for uillam, Lc. xv. s). This reading belongs to the Bezan 

Lat. d, not (as stated erroneously in their A^^aratus, in loc.) to our D, which with all other Vulg. 

reads uillam. 

* For a good example of this, see note on Lc. xix. 44, p. civ su^r. 



immediate borrowing from the Greek has been shown, and the collective force of 
the evidence under this head is not only not convincing but hardly appreciable. 

It is obviously unsafe to conclude that a variant in a Celtic Vulgate text, for which no Latin but 
only Greek attestation is now forthcoming, may confidently be reckoned as one derived immediately 
from the Greek.' For the Old Latin evidence has reached us in but an incomplete form, — most mss. 
of Latin vt being imperfect, — many seriously mutilated, many known only in mere fragments, — many 
others no doubt lost, some one or more of which, if recovered, would probably supply the Old Latin 
attestation which at present seems lacking. The fact that the overwhelming majority of Celtic 
variants from the standard Vulgate have passed into it from the Old Latin raises an antecedent 
presumption that a variant which seems at first sight to come straight from the Greek is merely an 
instance in which the Old Latin medium has been accidentally lost to us. 

Further, we must take into account the extreme improbability of imagining the scribe of: D to 
have consulted a Greek text. As we have seen (above, p. cxxv), his knowledge of Greek appears only 
in his use or rather abuse of the Greek alphabet, — and even that alphabet he knew imperfectlj'. It 
cannot be seriously maintained that he was capable of even attempting to use critically a Greek 
manuscript if such were within his reach. He has in not a few places shown that he (or possibly some 
one under whose direction he worked) possessed competent judgment and even something of critical 
knowledge in dealing with the Latin authorities for the Gospel text ; — as in his choice here and there 
of alternative readings set in his margin, — in his corrections (by expunction usually) of his own 
work, — in his use of the sign Z to mark his uncertainty as to the text, — and especially the not 
infrequent cases where he has preserved in his text readings of value or at least of interest. We 
may infer that if a Greek text had been available to him he would have used it to better purpose 
than in making petty changes like those noted by W-W as corrections after the Greek, while neglecting 
to refer to it in the countless places where it would have guarded him against serious errors. 

From conflate or doublet readings our ms. is not absolutely free in any one of 
the Gospels (see Subsect. iv in each of Sectt. II-V). Blemishes of this nature 
are to be expected in a composite text, such as is presented by all mss. of Celtic 
family; but it is only in Q (the Book of Kells, so remarkable for the beauty of its 
script and lavish decoration)^ that they are notably frequent. 

5. Readings in which our D agrees with the Bezan text of the Gospels 
(gr D d), as against other Greek texts, are (as above noted) not very numerous ; 
and it is to be added that most of them are of slight interest, being common to 
gr D a? with the great majority of Old Latin texts, and therefore lacking the 
distinctively Bezan character. But a few exceptional examples are worth 
recording, as follows : — 

Readings of gr D af found in our D. 

In Mt. : v. ig, om qui autem fecerit .... caelorum (so too gr J^), with vtt g^ r^ only ; xiv. 2, ins quern 
ego decollaui (with gr 5), vtt a h ffx gi h /a. — In Mc. : iv. 24, om et adicietur uobis (with gr G, one or two 
mss), vtt b e I r^ fi. — In Lc. : ii. 48, ins et tristes, vtt a eff^ I q r^; v. 14, ins ut sit, vtt a b c e ff^ q ry ; 
vii. 13, ihs for dns, vti fq; vii. 35, om db omnibus (gr L, few mss), no vt ; vii. 37, om quae erat (no 
other gr or vt) ; xiii. 35, ins deserta (with gr A, and few mss), vtt a b cfl qr^ri jx; xiv. 29, et displaced, 
with vt e only; xvii. 18, ins ex illis (before inuentus), vtt b ff^ i Ti {a, ex his); xxi. 6, ins hie in parieie, 

1 In recording the Greek authorities which support the readings of D, we have been diligent in including 
the MSS. of the Farrar group (^) wherein they or any of them appear. But in every such instance there is 
also Old Latin evidence to like effect ; and we find no proof or probability of any influence exercised in the 
Celtic Vulgate text by Greek mss. of this type, but mere confirmation of the fact, otherwise well established 
that a considerable " Western" element is present in the (p text. 

» Dr. Abbott's judgment on this famous MS is as just as it is brief. " Scri^turae ^ulchritudini textus 
sinceritas impar." 0J>. cit., Praef., p. xxiv. 


vtt cfft q ri r^ ft. {a I s partly). — In Joh. : iv. 3, ins terram (with some of ^ group), vtt a h efft I rijx.; 
vi. 3, aliit for subiit (with i^, and two mss), vtt aff^ I; vi. 26, ins et prodigia, vtt a bfri fj. ; vii. 5, 
crediderunt for credehant (gr L), vt q ; vii. 48, credit for credidil (with ^, /x only vt ; xiii. 34, ins et ego 
(vtt eg-o only, or orri) ; xvi. 3, 2«f «oto (gr KL). most vg, vtt a f /"^2 ; xviii. 8, ins eis (gr X, and a few), 
vtt frx {q, illis) ; xxi. 18, ins tu, vtt h c efff^ {jl ?). 

A few points of coincidence between our D and peculiar readings of other 
gr texts may be set down here. 

With S (besides Mt. v. 19, Joh. vi. 3, vii. 48, xvi. 3, as above), there are — Mt. viii. 49, perdere 
for iorqiure (alternat. in our D); x. 14, ins uel de castello illo (gr ^ (13 34&))) vtt ^2 V- — Lc. xii. 42, 
constituit for constituet (a few mss), vtt b c e ff^ / ? S ; xv. iz, om pater (no vt) ; xvii. 35, om whole verse 
(a few gr), vt / ; xviii. 28, ins quid erit nobis ? (gr X with H'), vtt / n rj. — Joh. i. 20, om et confessus est <'*', 
vtt e I fi.; i. 34, ins electus (two gr mss), ab ^\ xx. i,ab hostio monumenti, \\Xfri ; xx. 9, sciebat, for pi., 
vtt b effi q 8 ; xx. 1 6, ins et occurrit ut tanqueret eum (of <^, 1 3 346 with )>(), /x only of vt ; xx. 23, remittentur 
for pres., vtt eff% q n fj,; xxi. 6, ins dixerunt .... mittemus (from Lc. v. 5), vt fj, only, with X' ; xxi. 23, 
om quid ad te (mss i 22), vtt a e. — With A; Mc. x. 41, indignati sunt (gr ms i), vtt g-i q. — With B, 
Mt. viii. ID, apud nullum^ for non, with /* (also a gi k q, in nullo\um']). — With G (as with D, above). — 
With L, Mc. xiii. 18, ins {hieme) uel sabbato (some gr mss), vtt g^k n' ; Lc. vii. 35 (see under D) ; Joh. 
xii. 28, filium for nomen (gr X, mss i (13 346, ^)), no vt. — With A, Lc. xiii. 35 (see D). — With X (see 
under J^ and L). 

Though such coincidences between the text of our D and the singular readings of individual 
gr MSS are rare, it sometimes agrees remarkably with the best gr mss collectively, against most lat. — 
A striking instance is (Mt. xxvii. 49) its insertion of alius autem accepta lancea .... sanguis, with gr 
i^BCL, &c. (see p. cxlvi for this example). 

Section VII. — Text of the Acts of the Apostles. 

The study of the text of the Acts in our ms.^ is in some respects less difficult 
than that of the Gospels. The mss. with which it is to be compared are fewer ; 
and the comparison with them is a simpler matter, inasmuch as in the Acts it 
stands alone — not as one of a known family of mss., but as the sole forthcoming 
witness to the Irish form of the Vulgate Acts — if indeed it is to be regarded as 
representing a type of text, and not rather as a single and singular example of a 
composite text formed under peculiar conditions. 

Subsection i. Method pursued, and Materials used, in this Section. 

As in the Gospels (in Sectt. II— V), so now in the Acts, we depend in our 
survey of the Vulgate text on the Apparatus Criticus of the great edition of 
Wordsworth and White,^ and adopt its notation. The following is a brief 
summary of their account of the materials of their work, and of the arrangement 
and classification of them. 

(i) The Vulgate mss. employed in their edition are, for the Acts, seventeen in 
number,— ABCDFGelKMORSTUVW.— Ten of these (ACDFG@KTVW) are 
the Mss. which appear under the same designations among the twenty- nine above 
adduced in Sectt. I-V (after Wordsworth and White) for the Gospel text ; — the 
rest of those twenty-nine (including all the Celtic group except D) are Gospel-Mss. 

1 In our MS. (see below, pp. ^iVl ^nd sqq.) the Book of the Acts stands last of the books of N.T. But it 
seems more convenient to discuss its text here, following the familiar order. "^ Fars II, fasc. 1 (1905). 


only, and unavailable here. The remaining seven (BIMORSU)' of their seventeen 
Acts-Mss. are mss. not hitherto cited — none of them including the Gospels 
(except R, which presents them in a text nowise noteworthy), but only the Acts, 
with or without the remaining Books of the N.T. 

Of these ten, the Editors distinguish five, which they set apart from the rest 
of their seventeen as "primary," and independent inter se. 

Classis I (for the purposes of the present Section) is formed of these five mss. 
ACDFG, the five, namely, which happen to stand first in alphabetical order. But 
in Classis I these are ranked GCAFD, in the order of their value in point of faith- 
fulness to the presumed archetype. Thus A and F alone of the mss. which form 
Classis I for the Gospels, appear in Classis I for the Acts.^ But A fails to maintain 
here the pre-eminence which it held there ; and to F also is assigned a place 
lower by one step. G now heads the list as first in authority of the seventeen, 
with C as second, — though neither is probably of earlier date than the ninth 
century, and both are reckoned in Classis II among mss. of the Gospels. — Our D 
also, coeval with G and C, is promoted with them to Classis I of this Section from 
Classis II of the Sections preceding. 

Classis II (Acts) consists of the six mss. IMOSTU, none of which is among 
those cited for the Gospels, except T. All of these are "secondary," — following 
more or less closely some one of the mss. of Classis I. In date they range from 
Cent. VIII to Cent. x. Their order of value is IMSUTO. 

I is Cod. luueniani; Rome (Vallicell. B. 25); contains, with Acts, Cath. Epp. and Apoc. Of 
Cent. VIII or ix. 

M, {Monacens.) ; Munich (Royal Libr., Lat. 6230) ; contents as of I. Cent. ix. 

O, {Oxoniens.); Oxford (Bodl. 3418); Acts only. Cent. viii. 

S, {Sangallens.) ; St. Gall (Libr. of Monast., Lat. 2). Acts and Apoc. only (of N.T.). Cent. viii. 

U, {Ulmens.); London (Brit. IVIus., Add. 11852). Acts, Epp., Apoc. Cent. ix. 

For T, see in Sect. I, p. cxliv, supr. 

Of these, I and M follow the type of which A is the primary ; S and U, that of F ; T, that of C. 
O is accounted as a text formed partly after the A-type, partly that of D. 

Classis III (Acts) contains the five mss. which remain of the seventeen (with W, 
which we set aside as being a mere average example of the later medieval text). 
These are B@KRV, which are to be distinguished from those of Classis II, not in 
point of date, but as being each of them the result of a deliberate recension, 
made circa a.d. 800; @ being due to the recension of Theodulf, and closely akin 
to C ; the other four to that of Alcuin, which (in the Acts) depends largely on F. 

^{Bambergens.); Bamberg (State Libr., A. 1.5); whole Bible(exc. Apoc). Cent.ix. 
R {''De Rodis'') ; Paris (Biblioth. Nat., Lat. 6) ; whole Bible. Cent. x. 
For @KV, which have already been employed for the Gospel text in Sectt, 
I-V, see p. cxliv, supr. 

The order of value of these five mss. is @KBVR. 

1 These seven, and the BR of Classis III, are to be carefully distinguished from the MSS. which are 
denoted by the same letters in Sectt. I-V. 

2 The rest, except H, contain no part of the N.T. beyond the Gospels. 


Thus these seventeen mss. (apart from their division into Classes according 
to their textual faithfulness) group themselves into two main Families, which 
it is convenient to name after the most conspicuous member of each, as the 
"A-family," the " F-family";— the former including, with GA, I and M; the 
latter, with F, SUKBVR(W). After these, comes a third Family, C with T.— 
To the A-family, D and O also fundamentally belong, though both have affinities 
with CT. In like manner © shows itself frequently akin to CT, but is on the 
whole to be referred to the F-family. 

(2) Besides the above vg mss., which are the immediate material of the 
Apparatus of W-W, there are some mss. of vt which enter largely into it. Most 
of those, however, whence the vt readings are cited for the Gospels, fail us here ; 
and the O.L. text of the Acts is but imperfectly represented. The mss. are few, 
most of them either fragmentary, or affected more or less with Vulg. admixture. 
One alone of those that are not so mixed is complete, that contained in the 
Stockholm ms. known as Gigas — a Bible of Vulgate text except in this Book 
and the Apocalypse. 

Of the vt authorities cited for the Gospels, three only are available for the Acts, — c, d, m. 

The text of c (see above, p. clxv) is purely vt in the Gospels only ; for Acts (and the rest), 
mixed, and by a later hand (Cent. xiii). 

That of d (see above, p. clxv) is far from complete. There is a gap from viii. 20 to x. 4 ; smaller 
gaps occur in chh. xx, xxi, xxii, and at xxii. 20 it breaks off finally.^ 

That of pt is a series of extracts merely (see above, p. cxlv), twenty-nine iu all, of which the 
first is i. 24, and the last, xxiii. 3. Most of them are of one or two verses merely, but they include 
ix. 36-42, xiv. 15-17, XX. 33-35, xxi. 20-25. 

Besides these, we have, for Acts, the vtt witnesses dd e gt gg h p s t. 

dd [Demidovianus) not now forthcoming, edited by C. F. Matthaei in his Nov. Test. Gr. of 1782-88 ; 
it is (like c, to which its text is akin) only vg mixed with vt. Assigned to Cent. xiii. 

e {Laudianus). Oxford, BodL, is the lat attached to gr E of Acts, as d to gr D. Of late Cent. vi. 
It is less mutilated than d, but breaks off at xxvi. 29 ; after which it only gives xxviii. 26 to end. 

gi consists of two mere fragments {Medial.') ; Milan, Biblioth. Amhros., of chh. vi, vii, viii. Printed 
by Ceriani, Monumm. S. ef P., t. i., f. ii. 

gg known a§ Gigas, of Stockholm, is a Vulgate Bible of which Acts and Apoc. only are Old Latin. 
Its text of these two Books has been edited by Belsheim, 1879.^ Of Cent, xiii ; purely vt ; complete. 

h {Floriac.) Paris, Biblioth. Nat., Lat 6400 G. Fragmentary, but exhibits a considerable part of 
the Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse, and Acts (eight portions of Acts ; of which the first begins iii. 2, 
and the last ends xxvii. 13). Edited by Berger, 1B89, and more recently by Buchanan, Old Lat. Bill. 
Texts, No. V, 1907. Of Cent. v. 

/ {Perpinian.) Paris, Lat. 321. A N.T. MS, Vulg. except in Acts, where the text is mixed, — the 
first half (i. i-xiii. 5) being vt, and also the latter part (from verse 16 to end) of the last chapter. 
These parts were published by Berger, 1895. Many readings of the remaining parts, though not 
strictly vt, are cited by W-W under the title p? and used in this Section. 

' See note' and, p. cxlv, supr; which also applies to e, infr. 

' A series of important corrections of Belsheim's Edition has been kindly communicated by the late 
bishop John Wordsworth for the purposes of the present work. 
3 From an unpublished collation made by Mr. White. 


i {BoUmsid). Vienna, Lat. i6. Fragments, many of them unfortunately small, of the last six chh. 
of Acts ; the first being xxiii. 15-23, the last, xxviii. 16 to end. Printed by Mr. White in Old Lat. Bill. 
Texts, No. IV ( 1 897). Of Cent. vi. 

/. Lections from the Liber Comicus of the Church of Toledo, now at Maredsous). The Lections 
from the Acts in this book (fourteen in all) are Old Lat. ; the rest Vulg. Edited by D. Germanus 
Morinus, vol. i oi Anecdota Maredsolana, 1893. The first of these Lections is i. i-ii; the last, 
xiii. 26-39. The MS is of Cent. xi. 

w {Wernigerodens.) Libr. of Count Stolberg, Z. a. 81. — N.T. (but Acts only Old Lat., mixed). 
Cent. XV. See Blass, Acta App., p. xxv (Leipzig, 1896). 

Thus gg is the only complete exemplar extant of a purely Old Latin text of Acts ; and it is of the 
type distinguished as "European." The ms, though of no great age, represents a fourth-century text 
of high value. To it gt and s are akin. 

If k were complete, it would be of at least equal importance, as the earliest example of the pure 
African type ; of which the passages preserved in m, and some patristic citations, are (for the Acts) 
the only other remains. 

The following Summaries are arranged as those in Sectt. II-V. Variation in 
the Acts is, as will be perceived, much more frequent than in the Gospels, and of 
graver nature. — The symbols * f $ are here employed with same significations as 
there. The coincidences of our text with the Bezan are marked || ; its rare 
readings, §. 


Under this head, the examples are numerous, and many of them of substantial 

§ III i. 2 (heiore per spm scm) + Isms'] praedicare aeuanguelium. So D, and {after per spm scm) O, 
<i gg ^\ with gr D {sol). 

II t ib- 4 (after quam) + tnquit. So too G', CT, IMOUS', R, and cl ; c dd p; with gr D (^»?criv) :— 
against AFG and most vg, and other vtt (incl. (f). 

ib. 12 (before hierusolimam) + in. SoD (here, et passim) and so I (vg), e p; all gr, eis. 

§ f ib. 16 (after scripturam) + kanc. D sol (vg), d e gg p t, and Iren. ; with gr C'DE and some mss 


§ ii. 29 (beginning) + iterum dixit petrus. D sol. 

§ ib. ib. (after liceal) + miki. D sol (vg), and d e (but not gr DE). 

§ II ib. 37 (at end) demonstrate nobis. So too ® and a few vg; to like effect, T d gg p t, ostendite nobis; 
also e, monstrate nobis ; after gr DE, viroSeiiare rjfuv. 

ib. 41 (after reciperunt) + et crediderunt. [See on this reading in Subsect. v z'ra/r.J 

§ ib. ^"j (before qui salv.) + eos. D sol (vg), with d (gr D, and all, + tovs before eru^o/ievous). 
iii. 10 (after extassi) + stupefacti. [See on this reading in Subsect. v infr.\ 
§ ib. 16 (after in fide nominis eius) + ambulamus. D with ©, no vg else ; no vt ; no gr. 
§ II ib. 17 {aiiei fecistis) + scelus hoc. D sol; but to like effect ® and a few vg and gg p, hoc malum ; 
h, Iren. nequam; d, iniquitatem (with gr D, [to] irovripov) ; CT, hoc only. 
§ iv. 3 (before in crastinum) + usque. So also S sol. 

f ib. 20 {a.[ttr possimus [or — umus]) + nos. So also A', CT, d dd e ggp, and Lcf. (variously placed) ; 
also all gr ins ly/xcts. 

II ib. 31 (at end) omni uolenti credere. So also two vg, d e, and Iren. (with gr DE, Ttavrl tu 6eX.ovTi 
ma-Tcveiv) ; also (without omni) ® (but corr.), and two other vg ; another vg ms has uolentibus credere. — 
All gr else, and nearly all lat, om. 

f ib. 32 (after cor) + unum. So also cl, &c., and c dd ggp, and Aug. ; no gr. 


V. 9 (before ad earn) + ait. So too MT, ®R, c ; also {dixit or inquit), e gg p (with gr AE, &c., iittev). 

ih. IS (at end) + et liberabatur ah infirmitate sua. So too (but with liberabantur), A, MO, 0, and 
c d gg p, Lcf. ; also (with liberarentur) T'R' (and cl), and dd e\ of gr only D (dirT/Wao-o-ocTo), and E 
(pvo-eao-iv).— FG, CT, BKRV, and /, om ; with all gr else. 

§ ih. 17 (before /n«f«^j) + annas. So ® (but placed after /n«f. sacerd.); also/ (before autem), but 
om exsurgens (hence W-W ingeniously suggest a gr exemplar reading awas for dvao-Tas). 

§ ib. 21 (after misserunt) + ministros. D w/, reading f «/ adducerent eos (for w/ adducerentur of the 
rest), with CT, also gg and Lcf. (so too e p, adducere eos) ; gr, dx^'^vat avrovs, 

§ t ih. zg (at end) + at illi dixerunt deo [with note in mg to preceding oportet, " sub interrogatione"^.^ 
So D, with ® (mg), and a few vg mss ; similarly gg h (no gr). See farther in Subsect. v on vv. 29, 30. 

§ j- ib. 30 (beginning) + respondit autem petrus. D with ® (mg) as before (and similarly gg, h) ; also 
d with gr D [but gr D and d, om respond, autem p. et app. dixerunt from beginning of verse 29]. 

II f ib. 36 (after aliquem [or quendamj) + magnum. So too G', CT, I®, d e ggh; with gr A'DE, &c. 


§ f ib. 39 (before ne forte) + neque uos neque principes uestri. So D sol (vg), with dd gg ; also « 
{magistratus for princ.) after gr E (ovre vfteis cure 01 a.pxovri<; vixSiv) ; similarly <f after gr D, nee uos nee 
imperatores nee reges (owe v/teis owe ySacriXeis ovre Tij/Daj/i/ot), and h, neque uos neque principes ac tyranni. 

§ t vi. 2 (before xii) + apostoli. D sol (vg) ; so (after xii) p t ; gg subst apostoli for xii. 

\ ih. 3 (after spiritu) + sancto. So too ST'U, B, &c. (and cl) ; cddeht; after gr ACEHP, &c. : — 
but AFG, CT, IMO, ®, dggp, om ; after gr i^BC'D, 137, i8o ; and so W-W. 

II f ih. 10 (at end) + propter quod arguerentur ah eo cum omni fiducia. So too A'®, and e t (h, similarly); 
to like effect d, quoniam probatur illis ah illo c. 0. fid. ; with gr E Siort rfKiyy^ovTo vtt' airov /iera vda-rj's 
irapprjCTLa's (and D, 8to to iX.iyx^o'Oai avrov's ejr' avTOV ft., ir. Trapprjcriai). [But our D does not proceed 
(nor A and vg generally), cum ergo non possent resistere ueritati, as do (variously) ® d e h t, after gr DE.] 

§f ih. IS (after intuentes) + in {eum). So too O, and [intuiti in) d, also (intendentes in) e gtgg p; 
after gr, els avrov (but J^ om eJs ; and D writes a-urco) : — all vg else, and add, om prep. 

II f vii. 1 (after princ. sacerd.) + stefano. So too CT, ® ; and d e gi gg h p t w\ after gr DE. 

§ ib. 2 (at end) + et inde transmigrauit ilium in terra chaldeorum. So too only ® (vg), p' (vt) ; no gr. 

§ ib. 3 (after cognat. tua) + et de domu patris tui. D sol (vg) ; with e (after gr E, mss 65 67). 
Cp. Gen. xii. i (LXX). 

§ t ib. 6 (after [or before] deus) ^sic, D sol (vg) ; with d e gg p, and Iren. ; similarly CT, ita ; with 
gr ABCDEP, &c., ovrus : — but A and all vg else, om, with gr ^H, which subst. avT<S ; and so CT, 
SU, R, and c dd gg, eif d, ad eum (gr D, Trpos airdv). 

\ib. 19 {diiitr patres) + nostros. So too A'G, CT, MSU, BKRV (and cl), cddeggp; with gr ACEHP. 
&c.— But AF, 10, ®, cl, om (and so W-W) ; with d; and gr J^BD. 

§ j- ih. ih. (at end) + masculi. D sol (vg) ; with e gg, after gr E {to. appeva). 

ih. 2 1 (after illo) + in flumine. So D with a few vg ; also e {in flumen) after E (ets tov ■Koro.p.ov) ; 
d, secus flumen (D, itapa. tov tt.). 

§ -f ib. 27 (beginning) + is. D sol (vg), with e gg p. 

f ib. ib. (after proximo) + suo. So too A, SU, KV, gg: — most vg (and edd) om ; as also gr. 

f ib. 32 (after ego) + sum. So too SU, ®, and cl ; c d dd e gg p ; with gr E (not D) : — all else om ; 
and so W-W. 

ib. 34 (before mittam) + et. So also most vg (AG, &c.), and edd : — but F, MOR', and ddde gg om 
{p om ueni et) ; and so all gr. 

f ih. 39 (after reppulerunt) + eum. So also G', CT ; dd gg p' : — most vg om (and edd) ; and all gr. 

§ ib. 44 (after disposuit) + ds. So also R', and ddp', and cl ; no gr. 

f ih. 58 (before or after testes) + falsi. So too CO, gi gg p t ; no gr. 

§ ih. 60 (after hoc) + in {peccatum). D sol (vg) ; C, /, ad peccatum ; S, in peccato : —the rest, peccatum 
{om prep.) ; and so all gr. 

1 Bede has a like note in loc, ; and (with e gg k, and Lcf.) reads an {iovquatn) before hominibus. 

2 Thus CT, gg, ei ita, ei sic, with gr ms 40, avT^ outojs ; d with gr D, outus irpos avrov. 



viii. 4 (after uerhum) + dei. So also A, T, MOR', c e p' tw\ with gr E and ms 47 ; and so cl :— but 
FG, C, ISU, B0KRV (and W-W), dddggp'; with gr (except E), om. 

ib. 1 1 (after magicis suis) + artibus. So also O, R, and a few vg, no vt ; dd e (so cl), ota^zm j«w ; 
gSi magus eos ; gr, rats /uayiats (</, magicis rebus). 

ib. 1 2 (before nomine) + z«. So also F, MU', ®RV, c dd p' (and cl) :— but G, d e gg, de {nomine).— 
Against these A, CT, lOSU, K, p, om prep, (so W-W, but with f) ; with all gr. 

II ib. 24 (after horum) + malorum {quae dicitis). So D (mg) ; e ins malorum (but dixistis) ; and so 
gr DE, [tSi'] KaKSi/ Siv elprJKare [(/ Aiaiy : — D (txt) om malorum, and reads dixistis, with all else, lat 
and gr. 

t ib. 27 (after uir) + quidam. So too G, CT, and gg t: — the rest om, with all gr. 

§ ib. 31 (at end) + ascendit autem et consedit et reuoluit librum. D sol. 

t ib. 37 + dixit autem ph filium dei esse ihm \_xpm'\ (whole verse). So too A', OTU, B®RV, 

and cddeggmp tw (also cl) ; with gr E, some mss :— but AFG, C, IMS, K, &c. (and W-W), om ; 
with gr KABCHLP, and most mss. 

§ f ib. 39 (after spiritus) + sandus in iunachum euni' et anguelus {domini). So D with two MSS (vg), 
also p w (but om eum, and ins cecidit) \ also gr A', seven mss {irv. ayiov esroreo-ev kin. t. tvv., ayy. Se kv). 

§ t ix. S (after quem persequeris) + durum .... cakitrare, et tremens et . . . . facere, et dns ad eum dixit. 
So too (with much variation) FG', C, OU, BKRV, and a few vg, also c dd hp t; T (also cl), and gg, 
Lcf., ins only durum . . . cakitrare ; which words gr E, ms 180, and e [D d hiant'], and vg A'M, add to 
verse 4 : — AG, IM, ©, with all gr (except as above), om from both verses the whole interpolation 
(and so W-W). 

f ib. ib. (before orat) + ipse. So too CT, and gg h p; no gr. 

§ % ib. 12 (after uidit) + in uissu. D sol (vg), and e, (with gr BCEHLP, &c., iv opdfiari). 

t ib. 28 (after hierus.) + et. So too AG, CT, IMOU, ® (and cl), dd egg; after gr EHLP, &c. :— but 
F, S, BKRV, cp, with gr KABC, &c., om (and so W-W). 

ib. 29 (after quoque) + cum gentibus. So too O ; and (without cum) F, SUV, BKR, c (and so cl) : — 
all else, and all gr, om. 

t ib. 30 (before cessariam) + nocte. So too C, 0, and gg; also (after cessariam) p ; and per noctem, e, 
(with gr E, and ms 180, Sta vuktos). 

§f ib. 40 (after surge) + in nomine dni \nostri'\ ihu [at/z]. So too O, and gg m p : — no lat else ; no gr. 

X. 6 (at end) + hie dicet tibi quid te oportet facere. So too IMO, B'®R' (and cl), c dd p' ; a. few gr mss. 

II t ib. 25 (after adorauit) + eum. So too OSU', W, ddd p tw; gr D, airov :— no lat or gr else. 

\\] ib. 26 (after homo sum) -^ sicut et tu. So too Par. 1 1533 "and a few vg ; and (with variation) 
d e gg p t w ; and gr DE, m koX uv. 

§ t ib- 30 (before orans) + agens ieiunium et. So D with B' only (vg) ; some vtt {d e gg t), ieiunans 
et (but variously placed); with gr A'DEHLP, vr]<7Tev<»v xat (but these also place variously). 

§f ib. 32 (at end) + cum aduenerit loquetur tibi. So D (and similarly R, /), and d e gg t (but all 
these prefix qui or hie or is); with gr CDEHLP, &c. (os irapaycvo/nci/os XaXijtret aroi). 

§ t i^- 33 (after ueniendo) + ad nos. So too B'R, and / (no gr). 

II t ib. 41 (at end) + \_per\ dies xl. So too © and a few vg, and d e gg tw; with gr DE. 

§ ib. 42 (before mortuorum) + non. D sol {cp. Mt. xxii. 32, and parallels). 

§ ib. 46 (after Unguis) + uariis. D sol (only d similarly, praeuaricatis [gr D hiat {qu. trepais, as 

ii. 4?)]- 

II t ib. 48 (after maneret) + apud eos. So too IMT, BKRV (and cl), also c {gg, apud illos, and p, 
apud se) ; with gr D, Trpos awovs {d, ad eos) : — all else om (so W-W). 

II xi. 17 (at end) + ne daret spm scm illis credentibus in noe ihu xpi. So too O and Par. 11533, ^i^d 
(with variation) ®, and likewise d after gr D (toS /a^ SoCi/at airots trveiiui. aiyiov Tncmvdaa-iv ett' outo!) ; 
also (without credentib. in n. ihu xpi) R, /, Aug. : — all gr and lat else om. 

' Note that gr D hiat, viii. 29 — x. 14 ; d, viii. 20 — x. 4. 

2 Probably for eum, D ought to have written uenit (as Hieron. Adv. Lcf., 9). Or it may have 
originated in an attempted correction {eun for 2««achum). 


§ f xi. 29 (before prout) + qui erant antiochiae. D sol (vg) ; gg (nearly) : — no lat else ; no gr. 
§ xii. 16 (after /«/fa«*) + hostium. D sol; but also (after aperuiss.) U, BKRV, c : — no lat else ; no gr. 
xiii. 2 (after opus) + ad (quod). D sol (vg), (but so cl), and dd, Lcf. : — the rest write quod without 
prep. (O, R®', c mp', quo; d om), 

ib. 13 (after paulus et qui cum eo) + eranl. So too A', CT, MOR (and cl), c dd p ; to like effect 
d e gg (gr, 01 wept IlavXoi/) : — all lat else om erant, and so W-W. 
ib. 14 {h&iox& pissidiae) + quae est. So too CT, c. 

§ \ ib. 22 (before regem) + in. D sol (vg), rf « ; gr (DE and all), eis ISacriXea. 
f ib. 25 (after ego) + xps. So too CT, O, and e gg; with gr E, ms 68, 6 )(pi<rT6i. 
§ j'i. 27 (after A««f) + xpm. D w/ ; SU {hum) + z'^w. 

§ II *^- 33 (^t end) + postula ame . . . terminos terrae. D sol (vg) ; «f, with gr D. From Ps. ii. 8 (LXX). 
§ ib. 38 (after hum) + ihm. So D, with ® sol (vg), and gg (but o»t hunc). Again § (ver. 39) D 
sol + ?Awj (after hunc, which D reads there for hoc). 

§11 ib. ib. (before remissio) \poenitentia (nobis) et. D sol (vg); but gr D 1^ ins et poenit. after adnuntiatur. 
%\ ib. 43 (after colentium) + dm. So D with U sol (vg), ^fc/ e ; with gr E. Also § (after dm) D sol 
ins et before aduenarum. 

§ t xiv. 2 (after suscitauerunt) + persecutionem. So D with R' sol (vg), e ggw; with gr E (Siajy/tov). 
[Similarly gr D, and d; but they add aduersus iusios (Kara t<ov SixatW), which no vg admits. J 

II f ib. ib. (at end) + sed dns continuo pacem fecit [inter illos']. So D, and similarly ® and others {dns 
autem dedit cito pacem); d dd gg p w, nearly as ®; with gr D (6 8« Ku'pios tStoKev raxi dprjvtiv); also 
(more shortly) gr E, 6 Se ks eipijviji' iTroi-qa-ev, e, ds autem pacem fecit. But § our D is alone in subjoining 
inter illos. 

XV. I (before quia) + dicentes. So too CT, and c. 

§||f ib. 20 (at end) + et quaecumque sibi fieri nolunt ne aliis faciant. So D sol (vg), and so (nearly) 
Iren. (gr and lat) ; and similarly d, after gr D and some mss {koX oo-a fit] 6i\ov(ri.v iavroU yCvea-OaL, kTipoii 
/A^ iroiiiri). Cp. verse 29 infr. 

II f ib. 23 {a-iter per manus eorum) + aepistulam continentem haec. So D with I' (vg) and a few, also 
c gg w, and similarly d ; with gr D and C, eirtcrToX^v Trepie'xovcrai' raSe. 

j- ib. 29 (before subfucato [corr., suffocato^ + «/. So too G, MS'U, R', (also CT, + et a), and cl ; 
c dd e gg p' ; with all gr, except D which om koX ttvikt., as also d'. — AF and all vg else, and p, om et 
(so W-W).^ No lat reads suffocatis, but gr i^ABC and mss 61 137, ttviktuiv (the rest, ttvlktov). 

II t ib. ib. {after fomicatione) + (as in verse 20 supr.) et ea que uobis fieri non uultis nefeceritis aliquibus. 
So D, and so (nearly) ® (vg) and a few more, dp {v/), Iren., Cypr. ; with gr D and some mss (nearly 
as verse 20). 

ib. 33 (before tempore) + aliquanto. So too IM, R (and cl), and c dd; O, aliquando; G, multo: — 
no other lat; no gr. 

II f ib. 34 + uissum est autem siliae remanere ibi. So too G, CT, M, ©R (and cl), c ggw; similarly d, 
placuit autem sileae sustinere eos, after gr D, ISo^c Sc rep a-iX^ iirifidvat. avrovs, as also C and many mss 
(some adding avroBi, or airov). — With the rest, W-W om. 

II f ib. ib. (after ibi) + solus autem iudas abiit. So too MRT, ®, and cl (+ ierusalem) ; d ggw, with 
gr D (fiovos Se tovSas i-TropevOrj) : — no Other lat or gr (W-W om), 

II f ib. 41 (at end) + et praecipiens custodire praecepta apostolorum et seniorum. So too O, dd; also 
{om e/'^') F, SU, BKRV (so cl), and c gg; similarly d {tradens autem mandatum presbyterorum) after gr D 
(TrapaStSous ras evToXas tGi' irpccryS.) : — but not gr E, e, or other gr or lat. — Note that in making this 

addition D is inconsistent with its reading (see in Subsect. iv infr) perambulant confirmantes. 

See farther on this verse in Subsect. v infr. 

II f xvi. I (beginning) +«/ cum circumiisset has nationes. So D, with O and few vg, and gg (nearly), 
likewise {circuissent) Cassiodor. {Complexiones in Actus), in loc. ; also d {pertransiens gentes istas) ; with 
gr D (SicX^wv Se to. tOmj ravra). See farther on this verse in Subsect. v infr. 

II f ib. 6 (after uerbum) + dei. So too O, ® (and cl), d gg m; with- gr D : — no lat or gr else. 

' See W-W in loc, on suffocato, 


xvi. 7 (aiter spm/us) + ihu. So too vgg generally (exc. ©, xpt, U, sa), and so add, also d e (but </</ 
gg, domini) ; gr ^^ABDE, and some mss, h]<:rov ; C, KxpLov : — gr HLP and most, om (but no lat). 

§ ib. 12 (at end) + uerbum dm. So D with only. 

§t ib. 17 (after subsecuta) + «/ {paulum et nos). D w/ (vg), and (f j^^g-, Lcf. ; — § D sol also ins ad 
before nos, but om et after it, thus reading et ad nos clamabat. 

§ ib. 37 (before puplice) + in. D sol [perhaps to be read with [con']dempnatos'] following, as corr. 
for con ; so {inferlin.) indem{pnaios).'\ 

§ II ib. 40 (after fratribus) + narrauerunt quanta fecisset dns cum tilts et. So D, with vg MS, Par. 
^'533 ; ^nd d, after gr D (8iijyi;<ravT0 ocra i'lroirjcrev ks avTois). 

§ II t xvii. 6 (after clamantes) + «/ dicentes. So too R w/ (vg), and c?^^ ; with gr D. 

II t ib. ib. (after ht') + j««/. So too CT, OSU, ® (also G, isti sunt), also c d dd gg p, with gr D 
only : — but AF, IM, BKRV (and add), om sunt; and so all gr, exc D. 

§ ib. 1 1 (at end) + quomodo paulus adnuntialat. D sol (vg) ; and gg {quemadmodum) ; so gr ms 137. 

§ ih. 18 (before uult) + sibi. D sol, with Ambr., Ep. 63 (cited by W-W). 

ib. 19 (after dicentes") + non. So too CT, OSU, and c dd ; with a few gr mss. 

§ ib. ib. (after scire) + doctrinam. D sol. See on this verse in Subsect. v infr. 

§ f ib. 26 (after uno) + sanguine. D w/ (vg), and (/ if ^^, Iren. ; with gr DEHLP, &c. (ai/uaros). 

§ zi5. 28 (before et genus) + creatura. So D with vg 11533 Par. (W also writes creatura, but om et) : 
— no vt ; no gr. 

§11 ib. 31 (after uiro) + ihu. D sol (yg), and so (f ; after gr D {irjv), also Iren. 

t xviii. 2 (at end) + et salutauit illos. So D with a few vg, and gg; similarly (but placed earlier), R', h. 

ib. 4 (whole ver.). D ins, with (more or less) A'l', CT, ®R (so cl), and c d dd e gg h; with all gr : — 
but AFG, IMOSU, BKV, and p, om ; and so W-W. — Subdividing the verse, we find in our ms — 

II j- (a) + et intrabat in synagogam per sabbatum omne disputabat. So D,' and (to like effect) d h, also 
T (without disput.) ; after gr D {iujiropevoit.ivo'i Se ecs Tr\v a-vvaytayriv Kara ttSlv a-dp^arov SieXeyero) : — but 
(with slight variation) the rest, and cl, [«/] disputabat \_autem'\ in synagoga per omne sabbatum ; with all 
gr else, SieXeycro Se iv ry (Tvvayuyyfj k. irav crdp^arov. 

§ II t (/3) + interponens nomen dni ihu. So D with ©W (vg), and cl, also c ddd ggh; with (of gr) D only 
(/cat ei'Ti^ets to ovofi.a rov kv irjv). 

II t (y) + suadebat autem non solum iudeos sed etiam graecos. So D sol (vg), and to like effect d {non 
solos), h {non tanium) ; gr D, koL eireidev Sc oi /xovov lovSaiov? aXXa kol IXXiyi/as : — the rest, with slight 
variation, suadebatque iudaeis et graecis ; with most gr i^TttiOkv re lovSaious koX IXXr^vas). 

III ib. 6 (after uestimenta) + sua. So too CT, MS, ®R (and cl), and also c d dd gg {h, uestem suam) ; 
with gr D and many mss (auroB) : — the rest, gr and lat (and W-W), om. 

§f ib. 17 (after omnes) + greci. So D sol (vg), d e gg h ; with gr DEHLP, &c., ot tXXi/i/es (a few 
mss, [ot] touSatot) : — the rest (gr and lat) om. 

§ j- ib. 18 (before siriam) + in. So D sol (vg), and cl ; with d e gg h (all gr, ets) : — all vg else, and 
W-W, om. 

Ill ib. 21 (after uahfaciens) + dixit oportet me diem solennem {qui superuenit) [all other lat, aduenientern\ 
facere hierusalem. So D, M, and so (nearly) ®, also d dd gg; with gr DHLP, &c. {koX elTrdv, Set [/u,e] 
irafTtDS TTjv eopTYjV ttjv ipxo/J.ivr]v noLrja-ai eU Upocr6\v/jt,a), — All else, gr and lat, om (but ins Kai). See 
farther in Subsect. v infr on this insertion. 

ih. 25 (after quae sunt and before ihu) + de. So too CT, SU, dd; also d gg (but these two om ea 
quae sunt) ; F has in (for de) ; e, circa ; Aug., iuxta ; all gr, ra irept '\tov\ Irjcrov : — all vg else (and 
edd), quae sunt iesu. 

f xix. 2 (after illi) + dixerunt. So too G', IMOSU, BKRV (and cl), c ddggp; with gr HLP, and 
many mss : — but AFG, CT, ®, d e; with gr jf^ABDE, mss 13 40 73 137, ow (and so W-W). 

f ib. 9 (after uiam) + dni. So too A', CT, M, ®KRV (and cl), and c dd e gg; with gr E, few 
mss :— AFG, lOSU, B (so W-W), and dp om; with most gr, KABDHLP, and mss. 

1 The reading intrabat .... disputabat, without copula, seems to indicate interpolation unskilfully 
made from a text of gr D type. So again, in ver. 21, dixit . . . dicens, betrays a like interpolation from 
like source. See farther on this verse in Subsect. v infr. 


t xix. 9 (before tyranni) + cuiusdam. So too {tramp.) AG', M, 0KRV (and cl), and c ddd e gg\ 

with gr DEHLP, &c. {jiv6%) :— but FG, CT, lOSU, B (so W-W), /, om ; with gr J^AB, and a few mss. 

§ lb. ib. (at end) + ah hora u usque ad horam uiiii et decimam. So D sol. Of vg, G'© only, and 

(of vtt) d gg, add here a like note of time ; with (of gr) D and ms 137 only. But on this insertion 

see farther in Subsect. v infr. 

ib. 13 (after ihrri) + xpm. So D, with M only (vg). 

§ ib. 15 (after qui eslis) + non noui. D sol ; similarly Cassiod. [ut supr), ignoro. 
t ib. 23 (after uia) + dni. So too FG', CT, OSU, BKRV (and cl), and c d (not gr D) dd gg p :— 
but not AG, IM, ®, nor e ; nor any gr. W-W om. 

§ XX. 16 (before hierusolimis) + in. So D sol (vg), with d e ; and gr, tts (D, Iv). 
§ ib. 33 (after argentum) + enim. D sol (CT, autem) : — all else om. 
[Note that g^: D hiat, xxi. 2-10 ; d, xx. 31 — xxi. 2.] 
§ xxi. 8 (after septem) + diaconis. D w/ (w^, not ixt). 

§ ?■*. 10 (after moraremur) + zH. So D with R only (vg) ; also / : — no lat else ; no gr. 
§ ib. 1 1 (after alligabunf) + eum. D sol ;— and again, (after tradenf) + eum. D, with R only (vg). 
ib. 12 and 15 (before hierus.') + ?«. § In 12, D sol (vg), also «/>.— In 15, D with T, © (and cl), dd e. 
All gr, «is, in both places. In 17, D with all om in. Cp. on xx. 16 supr. 
§ f 2'3. 16 (before ex discipulis) + quidam. So D sol (vg), and gg. 

§ z'lJ. 2?. (before iassonem [sic]) + A««<r. D sol.^ See farther in Subsect. iv in/r on this ver. 
§ f ?5. 20 (after sunt) + hominum. D jo/ (vg), and ^^ w/ (vt) : — no gr. 
§t ib. 23 (woi/i) + f«OT. D sol (vg), / w/ (vt) ; — no gr. 
§ ib. 26 (after oblacio) + quam praecipit moisses. D sol (from Mt. viii. 4). 

xxii. 3 (before Marw) + a. So too I and V ; but dd e, in (so cl) ; all gr, ev :— the rest (lat) om. 
§t «'i5. 7 (at end) + (/«wot est tibi contra stimulum calcitrare. So D sol (vg), with dd e gg; so also 
gr E (not D), o-kA-j^pov o-oi Trpos Kevrpa XaKTi^tiv. See on ix. 5 j«/r. 

§ /i. 28 (after tribunus) + ^aaw? yafz'/^ [est (mg)] /« cwew romanum dicis. So D with one other vg 
(cited by W-W) ; also the Bohemian version (cited by Tischendorf), and "alia editio" {ap. Bed.), with 
tarn for quam). 

[Note that gr D breaks off finally, xxii. 29 ; d, xxii. 20. J 

xxiii. I (before concilium) + in. So D with M sol (vg), and cl, also Lcf. {gg, ad) :— W-W om, with 
all else, reading concilium ; e, concilio ; all gr, t<3 o-weSpio) (without prep.). 

ib. 6 (before resurrectione) + (/«(". So also A, CT, M, and e (also Tert.) :— all else (and edd), om ; 
also gr (incl. E). 

ib. II (before hierus.) + in. So also G', CT, OSU, BKRV (and cl), also c e, Lcf. ; all gr, eis :— 
but AFG, IM, © (so W-W), and dd gg h p, om. See under xxi. 12 supr. 

t ib. ib. (before romae) + et. So also AG, IMU', R (and edd), z-nA dd e h p ; with all Zr{gg, Lcf., 
etiam) :— but F, CT, OSU, B©KV, &c., and c, om. 

* ib. 18 (before rogauit) + means. So also FG, CT, IMOSU, ®R (and W-W), also c dd {e, aduocans) 
p {h, uocauit rogans) ; with all gr (Trpoo-KoXeo-a/ieros) : — but A, BKV (and cl), gg, on. 

ib. 21 (after amplius) + quam. So also MOU, BKRV (and cl), and c dd p' :--but AFG, CT, IS, ®, 
(so W-W) and /, om ; also (with plus or plures) e h gg s. 

f ib. 25 (whole verse) + timuit enim peccuniam. So also (with variation)' M, R (and cl), and 

c gg p\ with gr ms 137 only : — all else, gr and lat, om (so W-W). 

ib. 30 (at end) + 2<a/«. So also G', CT, © (and cl), dd e {I, ualde); with gr i^EL, &c., eppaxro, 
(similarly HP, eppaarde) : — W-W om, with all else. 

t xxiv. 6, 7, 8 (after adprehendimus) + (6) uoluimus iudicare eum sec. legem nostrum, ^') intercedens 
(or superueniens) autem . . . . de manibus nostris, (8) iubens accussaiores ad te uenire. Si alsoVwith varia- 
tions) A', IM, BKRV (and cl) ; c dd e gg p' ; with gr E, and many mss :— but AFG, Zi:, OSU, ©, and 
p s, om (and so W-W); with gr XABHLP, and most mss (M, and gg, om iubens .... uenire}. 

1 D writes Kciassonem ; possibly by misreading hci for mn{asonem) of its exeitplar. 


§ t xxiv. 13 {s.hex possunt) + quicquam. D sol (vg) ; gg sol (vt). 

lb. 18 (at end) et adprechenderunt me clamantes et dicentes tolle amicum [D (m/^r/.) corr. ini{micum)\ 
nostrum. So D with © only (vg), c rf;//' : — all lat else, om ; and all gr. 

§ ib. 23 (after rfe and before uia) + Aa<r ««nVa/2>. D sol; M, ©' (and cl), also c dd gg s, ins hac 
only :— the rest (and W-W) mostly read de uia only [but some (incl. FG, CT, &c., and /) de ui, by 
lapse] ; except A, which om. All gr, ■n-tpl t^s oSoC. 

ib. 27 (after darelur) + ei. So too AF, CT, MU, R (and cl), and e p' {gg s deviate) ; with most gr 
(awTcS, but B d)»2) —against G, lOS, B®KV, and <r dd p, which om (and so W-W). 

XXV. 3 (before /^zVrM.r.) + in. So too F, CT, M, ®R (and cl), ce; all gr, eis:— all lat else (and 
W-W) om. See under xxi. 12 jw/r. 

z'i. II (after accussant) + z« (»z«). So too CT, ®', and c {gg accusant + aut dicunt de me) :— all lat 
else (edd) om ; with all gr {KaT-qyopova-Cv fiov). 

§ ib. 16 (at end) quae ei obieciuntur. D sol (so too ed sixt.) : — no gr. 

§ ib. 24. {after hierus.) + ut iraderem eum morti, inaccussabilem non potui tradere eum propter mandata 
quae habemus cessans, si quis autem accussat eum sequatur cessaream ubi custodilur qui cum conuenissent. 
D sol (vg) :— no vt ; no gr ; but similarly Vers. Bohem. {ap. Tisch.). See farther in Subsect. iv, and 
also in Subsect. v infr on this verse. 

§ xxvi. 6 (before iudicio) + et iudicor pro quam. See on this insertion in Subsect. v infr. 

ib. 22 (after et moisses) + dixit (joined to ver. 23). D sol; by error. 

[Note that E e kiant, xxvi. 29 — xxviii. 26.] 

§ t xxvii. 5 (after nauigantes) + xu diebus. D sol (vg), and h ; with gr mss 137, 216. 

t ib. 9 (after consolabatur) + eos. So D with T, ® (and cl), and c dd gg p' {h deviates) ; no gr. 

%ib. 18 (beginning) + permanente autem. So D sol. Wrongly inserted here, — [perhaps meant 
for ver. 20 ; on that verse see in Subsect. v in/r']. 

§ f ih. 2 1 (after oportebat) + uos. So D sol (vg), and gg s ; no gr. 

ib. 28 (after submitentes) + bolidem. So D with CT, 0KRV' (and cl), c dd gg p {s); gr, /SoXto-avTcs. 

§f xxviii. II (at end) + parasse modios 'xx' chorus. See in Subsect. v infr. on this insertion. 

f ib. 29 (whole ver.) + et cum haec . . . questionem. So CT, M, (and cl), also c gg p, and to like 
effect Cassiod., ut supr\ with gr HLP, &c. :— but AFG, lOSU, BKRV (and W-W), om, also dd es; 
with gr ^^ABE, and mss 13 40 61 68. 


In this Subsection, the examples presented are much less noteworthy, as well 
as fewer, than in the preceding- ; though many are included in it which are 
properly to be accounted " non -interpolations" rather than omissions. 

§ f ii. 4 (after spiritus) — sanctus. D om with R, rf / ; so all gr (incl. D) exc. E : — but e, with all 
lat else (and edd), ins ; with gr E. 

§ f ih. 7 — ecce. D sol (vg), / sol (vt) : — against all lat else (and edd), and all gr (tSou). 

%ib. 22 (before- :citis) — uos. So D; but d p t, also Iren. (lat), subst ipsi; with nearly all gr 
(avTot) : — all lat e'ise (and edd) ins uos {e, uos omnes, gg, uos ipsi). Of gr, E alone, v/teis iravTe? 
(ms 117, v/x£ts only). 

■fib. 29 (before defunctus) — et. So also F, SU, B®KR (and cl), also cdddggp, and Iren.: — 
AG, CT, IMO, V, md e t, ins (so W-W) ; with all gr (incl. D.). 

§ II iii. •,. {a.hQi adleuauit) — eum. D sol (vg), also d e ; with gr DEP, &c. : — nearly all else ins. 

ib. I :i ,. Neithjr D nor any vg adopts the amplification of this verse, in which d (as also h, partly) 

folic " ' Pf ' D {iKTOpsvo/xevov 8e T. verpov Kal ....). 

.*. 13 (ater suum) — ihm. D sol (vg), with Iren. ; and gr ms 29 -.—all else ins; gr D, d{h). 


t iii. 13 (after tradidistis) — in iudicium. So D with all vg, and, dd gg; also gr (except DE) : — 
but of vtt, d e (and, with ad for in) hp, and Iren., ins; with gr DE. 

\ ih. 24. (before adnuntiauerunt) — et. So D with R only (vg), but so also cl ; and vtt c p' gg h : — 
all lat else (and W-W), and all gr, ins. 

t iii. 25 (before in semine)—et. So also FG, CT, U', ®'R, and c dd gg p :— A and all else (and 
edd) ins; and all gr. 

§ * iv. 2 1 — id, and — quod acciderat. D sol (vg) ; / sol (vt). So W-W (with f before and after). 
See on this verse in Subsect. v infr. 

§ %b. 22 (before xl) — amplius> D sol. 

§ ih. 24 (after due) — tu. D sol. A few gr mss om o-v, but read /cupie 6 ^s. 

\ ih. 28 (after consilium) — tuum. So also AG, IT, ®, also c e gg, Lcf. and others ; with gr AB 
(not E), and mss 27 105 : — all else, lat (and edd) and gr, ins. 

§ ih. 34 (after quoiquot) — enim. D sol (vg) ; with d sol (vt) : — but all gr ins yap, incl. D. 

vii. z — et patres. So D, with 10 : — but no vt, nor gr. 

ib. ih. (at end). Neither D nor any vg ins here, postquam \j>', antequam'\ mortuus est paier eius, 
'which gg p, with no gr authority, transfer to this place from ver. 4 infr. ; \_d here errs]. 

ib. 6 (before ds) — ei. See in Subsect. 11 supr on this verse. 

§ ib. 26 (after sequenti) — uero. D sol: — all else, vg, vt, or gr, supply some copulative; — most 
ins uero ; gg, quoque ; gr EP, &c. [t^]8« ; gr l^ABC [t^]t£ ; gr D prefixes toVc {d, tunc). 

§ t ib. 38 (after loquebatur) — ei. So D with 0, p : — against all else, and gr. 

t ib. 60 (before dne) — dicens. So also FG, 0, e h t; with gr E and nearly all gr : — but A and 
.all vg else ins (and so edd), also d dd gg m p; with gr D. 

ib. ib. (after [ob'\dormiuit). Neither D nor A, &c. (nor W-W) ins in dm : — as do BKV (and cl), 
p w (no gr). 

viii. 24 (at end). D, with all lat else \_d hiat'\, passes by os 7roX\a kXoiW ov SicXi/xirai/ev, of gr D. 

§ ib. 34 (before aliquo) — alio. So D, with V only : — against gr {erepov tivos) ; gg, alio {om aliquo). 
ix. 4 (— durum \_enim\ est tibi, &c. See on this insertion, in Subsect. 11 supr (under ix. 5). 
§ ih. 2 1 (at end) — ad principes sacerdotum. D sol. ; h subst sacerdotihus. 

\ ib. 22 (before magis) — multo. So also FG, CT, 10, B0KR, dd e gg h p t; all gr, p.aX\ov, without 
iroAAu) : — but A, MSU, V, ins ; and so edd. 

ib. 37 {aiteT /actum est) — autem. So also FG, ©R ; and one gr ms (61) : — all else ins. 

X. 25 (after pedes) — eius. So D, with F ; and all gr (except a few mss, which ins avrov) : — 
.all lat else ins. 

ib. 29 — ergo. So also SU : — all vg else ins, also d dd gg; e p, igitur; t, autem ; all gr, ovv. 
ib. 30. No vg, for [hora'\ nana, ins a sexta hora usque ad nonam ; as e, gr E : — no lat or gr else. 

§ t ^^- 37 (after incipiens) — enim. D sol (vg), and c gg, with ^BCEHLP, and most gr : — but the 
Test (and edd) ins, with d e, after gr AD (not E), dp^a/Aevos yap. 

xi. 2. D, with nearly all vg and most vtt, om the amplified form of this verse and the sentence 
■prefixed to it, as given by </ and gr D (6 p-lv ovv ireVpos . . . . t. x°-P"' '''■ ^'") '• — ^'^^ -^ ^"<^ ^ ^^^ ^S' ''■^^ 
J> w, ins (most in a shortened form) ; against all gr else (incl. E). 

ib. 15 (before initio) — in. So D with MS, © only ; R, ab : — all else ins. in. 

. f ib. 20 (before ad grecos) — et. So also FG', SU, BK, c d e gg; after gr X'DEHLP, most mss : — 
but AG, CT, M, ®V (and edd), and dd, ins, with gr i^AB and mss 27 29 61 69 163 (R and p subst 

§ f lb. 29 (before ministerium) — in. So D with M, gg : — against all lat else, and all gr. 

§ xii. 9 (beginning) — et. So D, with O only. 

1 W-W wrongly note on 22, " om erat amplius D " (D while it om amplius retains erat). 

clxxxviii INTRODUCTION. 

xii. 9 (after sequebatur) — eum. So also FG, CT. O, B, and dp ; with gr ^<ABD, some mss :— but 
A, MSU, ®KRV (and edd), ins, with cddegg; after gr K'EHLP and most {airm). 

ib. 10 (after exeuntes). D with all vg neglects descenderunt et, of /, to which d (after gr D, tovs f 
/Sa^^ous) adds (before «/) j^//«ot gradus. No other vt, or gr, supports insertion. 

§ ib. 1 6 (after uiderunt) — ^«ot. D w/ (vg), p sol (vt) ; gg subst ilium. 

§ xiii. 1 — et ieiunanttbus. D jo/. 

§ xiii. 1 6 (after surgens) — autem. D sol (vg), with d : — but gr D with all gr ins Si. 

§ ib. 21 (before exinde) — et. D w/ (vg), « w/ (vt) : — but gr E KaKiWw, with all gr. 

t ib. ib. (after dedit eis [or illis) — ds. So also G, OS, R, and gg; with many gr mss :— but all vt 
and vg else (and edd), and all gr mss, ins. 

t ib. 30 (after a mortuis) — tertia die. So also FG, CT, SU, ®, and d e gg p ; with all gr :— but 
A, G', MO, BKRV, also c dd t, ins ; and so edd. 

ib. 43. D with nearly all vg passes by the addition to the end of this verse {factum est 

uerbum \dni'\), as found in and a few vg, and dew, and in gr DE (but these two vary inter J«). 

xiv. 2 (before et ad irac.) — aduersus iustos. D with all vg om : — d with gr D alone ins. — On this 
ver., see in Subsect. 11 supr. 

* ib. 27 (before quia) - et. So also FG, SU, B0KRV (and W-W), ,: p :— but A, CT, IMO (and cl), 
d dd e gg, with all gr, ins. 

XV. 2 (before statuerunt). D, with vg mss in general (and edd), om the addition here found in d 
(after gr D), dicebat autem paulus .... crediderunt : — but ® and three or four ins, also gg w. — Moreover, 
the expanded form in which gr D, d, give the rest of the verse, is found in no other lat or gr. 

t ih. 4 (before senioribus) — a. So also AG, CT, IMS'U, © (and cl), d dd e gg p ; and so gr : — but 
FG', S, BKRV ins (and so W-W), and c. 

§ ib. 18 (after est) — dm. So D with T : — no lat else om, but e gg and Iren., read deo ; with gr 
EHLP and many mss {Bus, for k5> of AD). — But gr KBC and many mss om all after ■yi'coo-Ta dir' atcoros. 

f ib. 23 (before fratres) — et. So D with all vg and most vtt, after gr ^ABCD, mss 13 61 : — but 
c e ins, with gr jj^'EHLP and most mss. See also in Subsection iv infr on this ver. 

§ ib. 27 (before refferent) — uerbis. So D with R only : —no vt {e reads per uerbum) ; no gr. 

t ib. 37 (before adsumere) — secum. D sol (vg), with d gg: — all lat else ins; all gr (incl. D), 
crvfj-TTapaXa^eiv (or — ix^aveiv). 

ib. ib. (before iohannem) — et. So also O, ®, dp ; with gr DHLP, &c. : — all else, lat and gr, ins. 

xvi. 10. D with all vg, and all vtt (except d), ignores the expanded form of this verse in gr D 
[SuyepOeU ovv . . . . ; d, exurgens ergo ....). 

ib. 22 (after iusserunt) — eos. So also AF, IM, ® (and W-W), also d e ; with all gr : — but A', OSU, 
BKRV (with cl), ins (so G, CT, illos), as also c dd gg p, and Lcf. 

t xvii. 9 (before caeteris) — a. So also MOT, d gg; and all gr : — all lat else (and edd) ins. 

ib. 1 1 (before se haberent) — ita. D sol. See on this ver. in Subsect. 11 supr. 

ib. 12. Neither D, nor any lat (except d), supports gr D (and ms 137) in interpolating rivk Se 
rjmcTTrja-av {quidam uero credere noluerunt), after crediderunt ex eis. — Also D (with d) is alone in altering 
the latter part of the verse. 

f ib. 28 (after sicut) — et. So also 0, ®, c d gg p, and Iren. : — but all gr, incl. D, ins. 

§* ib. 29 — ad pedes. So G sol (vt) ; e sol (vt) ; and so W-W ; with all gr exc. D :— AFG', CT, 
and all vg else (and cl) ins ; also c d (with gr D) dd gg p, and Lcf. 

§ xviii. 5 (before xpm ihm) — esse. So D with R sol (vg), and e sol (vt) \_h diverges] ; with gr 
EHLP and most mss : — but d and all lat else ins, with gr i^ABD, and many. 

ib. 8 (at end). D with all vg passes over the addition, credentes .... ihu xpi; which d ins, after 
gr D : — of vtt, h alone supports it, and of gr, ms 137. 

ib. 15 (before legis [or lege]) — et. So D (txt), with CTU', c p : — but D (interl.) ins, with nearly 
all else (but h, uel de lege) ; and gr. 


xviii. 2 1 (before dixit [or dicens]) — ei. See on this ver. in Subsect. ii supr. ; and Subsect. v in/r. 
§ ib. 23 (before discipulos) — omnes. So D, with T sol : — all gr ins Travras. 

ib. 27. D with all vg (except R') om the introductory matter prefixed in gr D and d to this verse 
{Iv Se T^ €<jS«<r<j) imSriiJ. ) ; and all (incl. R') pass by the amplifications which follow (see gr D d). 

§ xix. 2 (before ne{c)gue) — sed. D sol (vg) ; with/ sol (vt) : — all lat else ins, and all gr (dW). 

§||-|-?i. 13 (after quidam)— et. D w/ (vg), and so vtt dddggp; with gr DL, &c. : — all else ins. 

§ ib. 27 (before magnae) — et. So D, with T only : — all lat else ins {d e gg, eh'am) ; and all gr, Kai. 

ib. 3S (after quis) — enim. So D, with S sol (vg), and dd sol (vt) : — all gr, yap. 

XX. IS (after seguenti^) ^ die^^K So also G, CT, IMOS', ®, d dd (all gr, rfj exo/^^'"]?, without 
i7fi€p^) : — all lat else (and edd) ins. 

§ ib. 22 (after quae) — in ea. D sol (vg), with / sol (vt). 

ib. 24 (after animam) — meam. So D (txt), and FG, SU, ®, de; with gr XBCD'LP, &c. : — the 
rest (and edd) ins. (D (mg) has gloss, "id est uitavi meam" .y 

ib. ib. (after cursum meum). Neither D nor any vg exhibits the insertion cum gaudio, which e 
(but no other vt) gives, with gr CEHLP and most mss, against gr i^ABD and mss 13 40 81.' 

f xxi. s (at beginning) — el. So D, with MR only (vg), aiid gg only (vt). 

ib. 16. Neither D nor any vg or vt follows gr D (with d) in its expansion of this verse. 

xxii. 26 (after dicens) — uide. So all vg, exc. © (mg), and vtt, exc. gg p ; with gr SABE, and some 
mss : — but gr DHLP, and most, have opo \_d hiat^ (Cassiod. {ut supr) ins uidete before si, in ver. 25.) 

§ 11 ib. ib. (after hie) — enim. So D, against all lat (exc. W) ; gr D also om \d. kiaf]. 

§ ib. 27 (after dixit Hit) — die miht). So D, with S alone (vg) : — all lat else ins, and all gr. 

ib. ib. (before tu) — si. So most vg (and W-W), vt, and gr : — but G, BOKRV (and cl), and 
c dd p', ins si; with gr LP and many mss. 

§ ib. 29 (before quia) — et. D sol (vg), with e sol (vt) : — E and all gr ins kolI. 

xxiii. 9 (at end). With all lat, and gr Ji^ABE, and some mss, D passes over the jj-ij deo/xaxuifjiiv 
of gr HLP, &c. (borrowed from V. 39 supr). 

t ib. 21 (after enim) — ei. So also A, OSU, K, and gg :— but FG, CT, IM, B®RV (so edd), and 
c dd e p s, ins, with all gr. 

f ib. 35 (before accusatores) — et. So also F, CT, SU, BKRV (and cl), also c gg p : — but AG, 
IMOS', ® (and W-W), ins, and dd e ; with all gr MSS, and mss except 37 101 137. 

§ I xxiv. 15 (before ipsi) — hi. So D, with I only (vg) ; and so gr f^ om ovtoi : — all else, lat and 
gr, ins both pronouns. 

§ J XXV. 8 (after paulo) — autem. So D, with W only (vg), and so cl ; with all gr exc. E : — but 
AF, &c. (so W-W), also dd e gg, and Lcf., ins ; gr E, toS Se TLavkov .... 

§ t ib. 9 (after fesius) — autem. D sol (vg), with dd p : — all lat else ins ; and most gr, Se (but A 
and a few, ovv). 

ib. 24 (after hierusol.) ^petens (or petentes) et hie. See in Subsect. 11 supr on this ver. ; also in 
Subsect. IV and in Subsect. v, infr. 

f ib. 25 (before a{u)gustum) — ad. So also G, CT, IM, and e gg s; with gr (which requires no 
prep.) :— all lat else (and edd), ins. 

§ f xxvi. 26 (before constanter) — et. So D with S', R only (vg), h (om also constanter) p ; also gr 
B, ms 25, om Kai: — the rest, gr and lat, ins {e, etiam fiducialiter). 

§ ib, ib. (after neque .... quicquam) — horum. D sol (vg) ; e, nihil .... hoc ; most gr, oi . . . toSto 
(E, oijhiv . . , TovTo). [Note that e with gr E hiat, xxvi. 29-xxviii. 26.] 

t ib. 29 (before omnes) — et. So D with F only (vg), p only (vt),: — all lat else (and edd, but cl, 
etiam), and all gr, ins. 

xxvii. I . For the opening words, see on this ver. in Subsect. v in/r. 

' Incorrectly given in W-W ; — gruia for quam (in text and gloss). 

' Note that d hiat, xx. 31 — xxi. 2 ; xxi. 7-10 ; xxii. 2-10 ; xxii. 20 (to end) ; gr D hiat, ,xxi. 2-10 . 
xxi. 16-18 ; xxii. 10-20 ; xxii. 29 (to end). 

2 A. 


xxvii, 3 (before curam) — et. So also I and O, against all else, lat and gr. 

ib. 9 (before leiunium) — et. So also F, CT, ISU, BKR, c dd; with gr ms i and a few others : — 
but AF'G, MO, ©V (and edd), gg h p, ins ; with all gr mss and most mss. 

§t ^^- 33 (before ieiun.) — expedantes. So D sol (vg), with gg sol (vt) :^-all lat else ins; also 
gr (Tr/)oo-SoKu)i/T€s). [Note that h Mat, ver. 13 to end of Book. J 

f xxviii. 4 (before non sinit) — eum. So too FG, B, gg s : — the rest ins, but place variously. See 
farther in Subsect. iv in/r. 

ib. 16 (after romam). D with most vg (and edd), om (with gr i^AB, mss 13 40 61) centurio 
tradidit uinctos prefedo, which a few vg and / ins (with gr HLP, &c.) ; similarly gg, centurio tradidit 
custodias prindpi peregrinorum. 

ib. 30 (at end). D with most vg (and edd), and nearly all gr, om iudeos atque graecos, which 
CT, R, and a few, ins, with gr mss 137, 21 6. D om also a like addition which ggp and a few vg give. 

§ X ib. 31 (before fiduda) — omni. D sol (lat) ; with gr mss, 4216. 

t ib. lb. (at end) — amen. So also G, CT, IMOSU, BKV (and cl), c dd ggp; with gr mss and 
most mss : — but AF, ®R, ins, with a few gr mss (and W-W). 


Examples under this head are not only very abundant, outnumbering those of 
Subsectt. II, III taken together, but of grave character, many of them showing 
wide departure of the "Western" from the other forms of text, and great 
proneness in our ms to follow it. 

II i. 4 (after audistis) per os meum. So all vg ; and similarly d {de ore meo) ; after gr D (8ta tov 
o-Tofiaroi /Aov) : — but vtt ggp t, a me; e, me {om a) ; all other gr, ■^Kova-are fiov. 

§ ib. 14 (beginning) homines. D (mg) sol : — D (txt), and all else, Aii omnes. 

t ib. 17 (beginning) qui. So also A, CT, MU (and cl), c d dd gg p t :— but A'FG, lOS, BOKRV, 
and e, quia (so W-W) ; with all gr (incl. D), otl. 

§ ib. 19. ut appelletur. D sol [d, ut uocetur): — for ut appellaretur {e gg p, ut uocaretur) of the rest ; 
gr, KkriOrivai. 

ib. 20. commemoratio. So also F, 0: — ior commoratio, F'G, CT, SU, BKR (and so edd), with c dd p' ; 
gr, EjravXis; similarly habitatio. A, IMOS', V, d gg p t, Iren. 

t ib. ib. (next word) eius. So also AG, CT, MOSU, ®R', d' dd p, Iren.; with gr MSS (incl. D) 
and most mss, avrov; similarly egg, illius: — but F, I, BKRV, cdt, eorum (so edd); with gr mss 
31 34 43 61 (avTwi/). 

§ ib. lb. habitat. So D (by lapse), for kabitet, which is read by CT, lOS, BKR (so W-W), and dd p : 
— but AFG, MU, ®V (so cl), and c d e gg t, Iren., &c. ; inhabitet. 

t ib. ib. alter. So also A, ©V (and cl), eggp t, Iren.'') :— but FG, CT, IMOSU, BKR, c d dd, 
and Iren.t"', alius (so W-W); all gr, erepos. 

II t ib. 23. barnab[b']as. So D, with T, ®R', and d (after gr D) ggp t :— all else (and edd), also 
dd e (with variation of spelling) barsab[b']as[^an']. 

§ [| ib. 26 (after sortes) eorum. D sol (vg), with e gg p t (M, d, suas); after gr DE, mss i 31 40, 
&c., avTUiv : — all else (and edd) eis ; with most gr, a.vToi%. 

ii. 4 (before Unguis) uariis. So also A, IMT, ©V (and cl), c p / :— but FG, C, OSU, BKR, and 
d dd e gg, aliis (and so W-W); gr, eripan. 

ib. 5 (before iudei). D writes hnes ; = habitantes {cp. hnem = habentem, p. 314 in/r, 1.15), as the 
rest read here, with gr [W-W suppose D to intend homines ; but that would be written hoes']. 

f ib. 8. linguam nostram. So also G, CT, MOU, B®R (and cl), also c dd gg p t; with gr D 
(t'^v StaXeKTor ri)i.u>v, — but not d) : — but AF, IS,' KV (and W-W), d e, lingua nostra; with all gr else 
(t^ tSta StaXeKTU) rifiutv). Of Vtt (but no vg) gg p t ins propriam ; d e, propria. 

§ t ib. 1 3 (after musto) repleti. D sol (vg), with d e ggp t :— all else (and edd) pleni. The former 
rendering better represents the gr (/ie/Aeo-Tco/teVot). 


t ii. 14. leuauil. So also AG, IMU, ®V (and edd), dd e gg:—hM\. F, CT, OS, BKR, c dp t, eleuauii, 

§ ib. 15. existimastis. So D sol; but similarly vtt gg p, existimatis (CT, /, extimatis) : — all lat else 
(and edd), aestimatis ; all gr, vrroXa/t/SaveTe {d, suspicamini). 

§ lb, ib. ebrei, D sol [= hebraei~\ : — for ebrii [!]. 

§ 11 ib, 22. in nobis. D sol (vg), with d, sol (vt), after gr D and a few mss («is .^jna9) : — but all lat 
and gr else, in uobis{eh v/xSs) ; except 1, omnibus. 

§ ib. 23. adfligenies. D w/ (vg), with /' sol (vt) ; similarly </(/, affligentes (so cl)' :— ^nearly all vg 
else, and c e. ggp /, adfigentes [or aj^^.J (and so W-W). AH gr, irpo(rirjyfai/T«s. 

\ ib. 27. ?■» infemum. So also C, I, 0, ^ / : — the rest in inferno {d, aput inferos^ ; gr, eis ^l^v (or 
CIS ^8ou). 

t ib. 33. Aoc </(?««»» qmd. So also CT, M, ®, and c dd e p t (similarly Iren.)i with gr E (rovro to 
Soipoi/ o) ; G', ^^, hoc quod; d, quod only (and gr D, o only) : — but AFG, lOSU, BKV (and edd), hum 
quern, with gr mss 40 133 {tovtov ov). All other gr have tovto o (as gg). [Apparently tovto 6, under- 
stood as TO irvcv/ua, = spiriium, is represented by Aunc quem.'\ 

ib. ib. uidetisel audisHs. So also FG, and /: — lOSU, if (not gr D), uidistis et audislis -. — all vg else 
(and edd), also c dd e gg p, Iren., with all gr, read both verbs in pres. tense. 

\* ib. 40 (after uerbis) pluribus. So also FG, CT, U, B®KR (and W-W), c d dd gg t \—\>\x\ 
A, IMO, V (and cl), e p, plurimis. All gr, ttXcioo-iv. 

%\ ib. ib. iestificabatur. D sol (so Aug.); and similarly (imperf.) contestabatur, d gg p and Lcf. ; 
with gr P and many mss (Ste/iapTvpeTo) : — all vg else (and edd), iestificatus est, and so dd e t; with 
gr i^ABCD (against d) E, &c. (Sicj«.opTvpaTo). 

§ ib. 44. credidebant. D sol [sic]. 

§ ib. 47 (before Jierenl) saluati. D sol (for salui; gr, tous o-cu^o/xei/ous). 

ib. ib. in id ipsum. D with all vg reads these words as part of ver. 47 ; and so most vtt ; with 
gr i^ABC, and D : — but e, with gr EP and most mss, makes them the opening of iii. i. 

§ iii. 2. bailabatur. D sol, for baiulabatur \ox baiol — ] of vg, also ddd; — but eggp, and Lcf., 

§ ib. 5 (before in eos) iniuebat. D sol \_sic\ (for intendebat, of all vg else (and edd) ; gr, lireJ^fl'), 
perhaps misled by intuens (= aTci'icras) in eum (ver. 4) ; e gg, Lcf., respexit ; h, contemplatus est. But 
gr D has dTevt'o-as (</, adtendebat) here, iii^Xiij/ai iii 4 {d, intuitus). 

ib. 7 (after adprehensa and before manu) ei. So also AG, IM, ® : — F and the rest (vg) mostly, 
and c dd gg h p, eius (so edd) : — but d and e, eufn (with adprehensum [or — dens'^ ; after gr, Trtao-as airov 

§ z'S. 8. if»»?. So also AG, CT, I, ® : — for dm of all else (and edd) ; all gr, Qiov. 

ib. 9. dnm. So also I, W, only (vg) ; gr C, tw Kvpiov. 

§ ib. (I. uideret. D sol; similarly uiderent, W (and vg sext.) : — for teneret, of all else (with gr). 

ib. ib. Neither D nor any vg admits the amplified form of this verse as in d (after gr D) ; of vtt, 
h alone similarly varies the opening words, down to concurrit (but no farther). 

lb. ib. [z.i\.ex porticum) qui. So also AG, CT, IMS, c d e : — all vg else (and edd), and dd gg h, quae. 

ib. 14. negasiis. Neither D nor any vg admits the variant grauastis of d (Iran., aggrauastis),^ for 
this word (gr D, i^ap-uvare) ; all gr else, ^pvTjcrao-^e. 

§ ib. 20 (beginning) ei cum. So also B0 : — nearly all vg else, ut cum (so cl), and so e gg p. But 
Iren., et only; d h, ut only; c dd (and so W-W, marked with f before and after), cum only.^ All gr, 
oirus S.V. 

t lb. 22 (after dixit) quia. So also AG, CT, IMOS, ®, c d dd e ggp {h om) :— but F, U, BKRV, 
and Iren., quoniam (and so edd); gr, oTt. 

ib. 23 (after anima) quae. So also AG, IM, (also cl), c dd: — but quaecumque, F, OSU, BKRV 
(and W-W), d e gghp, and Iren. (CT, quicumque) ; gr, ^Tts av (BDE, &c.), ^Tts edv (i^ACPand most). 

' So in ed. of 1592 and sixt. of 1590 ; most later and many earlier edd, affigentes. ' See Harvey, 

Irenaeus, II. 55. ' The reading of most vg, ut cum, seems to be due to conflation of the reading 

of c dd with that of dh. 

2 A.2 


t iii. 25 (after patres) nostras. So also A, CT, M, KRV (and cl), ddd ggh, &c. ; with gr KCDP, 
&c. (ij/twv) :— but FG, lOSU, Be, and e, uesiros ; with gr i^'ABE, most mss (so W-W). 

t iv. 3 {iniecierunt) in eos. So also MU, ® (and cl), c dd gg (/, in illos) : — all else (and W-W), in eis ; 
also G', T, B', d e, eis (without prep.); gr, iiri^aXov avTots. 

a. 12. oporieai. So also A, IMTU', B0RV (and edd), c ddp', and Iren. :— but FG, C, OSU, K, 
^ ^ igp> oportet {cp. ix. 6 infr). 

II ih. 21. clarificabant. So most vg (and edd), d dd: — other vtt variously, gloridbunt [corn, 
glorificabani'] {e) ; magnificabant (/) ; honorif. {gg and Lcf.) ; all gr, iSo^a^ov. 

§ ib. lb. dnm. D sol: — CT, d dd e gg p, and Lcf., deum, with all gr {tov $c6v) : — all vg else (AFG, 
&c., and cl), also c, om. 

§ * ib. ib. in eo quod factum erat. So D sol (vg) ; and so / {est for erat), and Bed. {fuerat) ; similarly d, 
super quod factum est; again, dd, in eo quod acciderat \ and (more briefly) e gg, and Lcf., in facto {isto'\ ; 
and so all gr, liA t<3 yeyovoTi. Note that the gr, and all these lat, retain dm (or dnm'), as the object 
to iloiatpv (see last note). — But nearly all vg else (so cl), and c p' , read id (for in eo) quod factum erat (or 
fuerat), as object in place of dm, and subjoin in eo quod acciderat (with dd). This reading is obviously 
conflate between that of our D, &c., and that of dd, — the former being slightly modified to supply the 
object as aforesaid. Either our D or dd is to be accepted instead of it ; probably our D retains the 
vt rendering, and dd that of Jerome. — But W-W adopt the reading of our D in their text, though 
marking it with f as doubtful. 

iv. 24. ad dnm. So also F, lOU, KRV,/, and Lcf. : — all else (and edd) deum; and so all gr. 

* ib. 30. in eo cum . . . {extendas). So also FG, CT, OSU, ©K (also W-W), </:— but A, IM, BRV, 
c dd e p, in eo quod . . . (so cl) ; gg and Lcf. subst dum (and om in eo) ; all gr, iv t& . . . Ikt^vhv o-e. 

§ ih. ih. ad sanitatis signa. D sol ; similarly CT, M, R' (so cl), also c dd gg p', Lcf., ad sanitates et 
signa ; e p, ad sanitalem et signa : — but A and the rest (and so W-W), reading sanitates et signa, om ad. 
The gr (cIs tao-iv, xal a-qixelo. . . .) confirms that oi e p (so too d, ad curationem et signa) ; to which the 
reading of CT, &c., comes nearest of vg. 

* ib. 35. diuidebantur. So also FG, C, IMOS, BOKR (and W-W), c (so d, distribuebantur) ; T has 
diuidehant : — but A, U, B', V (and cl), dd e gg, diuidebatur {p, distribuebatur) ; gr, SuSiSeto (or — oro). 

V. 3. tem\_p'\tauit. So also all vg (and edd), and dd: — but all gr, eVXiypcotrev, which vtt in general 
follow; repleuit {gg p, Lcf.), impl. {e, Cypr.), adinpl. {d). [No gr, ejreipao-ei'.J 

ib. 5. qui audierunt . So also cl : — but A and most vg (and W-W), qui audierant: — CT, M, d gg, 
Lcf., qui audiebant ; agreeing with gr, tovs dKowovras, (and so e p, audientes). 

ib. 8. tanto {bis). So D (but corr, interl.), also U, ® : — most lat (and edd), tanti. 

ih. 13. magnificabant eos populi. G, ® agree with D in plur. verb, but D alone writes populi: — all 
else (and edd) write both noun and verb in sing. (G, d t, by lapse, write populos.) 

§ ih. 16. occurrebat. D sol: — all vg else and most vtt, concurr. (gr, <ruvi]f>-)(exo). Cp. viii. 30 infr. 

f ih. 21. in carcerem. So also AG, ®, e gg, Lcf. : — all else (and edd) ad carcerem ; gr, cis ro ^iorixwrripiov. 

§ z'J. 24 {quidnam) factum esset. D sol: — most vg (and edd), and d, fieret ; CT, S, gghp, Lcf., 
esset only ; gr, ri a.v yivoiro (D, yevr)Tai) ; but E, rt 6iX.oi av tovto, e, uult esse hoc. 

%ih. 34. modicum. So D with and Par. 11533 (vg), and ep: — CT, d gg, pusillum: — most vg 
(and edd), also dd, ad breue ; gr, /3paxu[rt] ; {h, interim). 

t ib. ib. apostolos. So also A', CT, O, and d e gg h (with gr DEHP and most) :— but AF and the 
rest (and edd), c dd p (with gr KAB), homines. 

t ih. ih. {foras . . . .) secedere. So also CT, O, ^f^:— most vg (and edd), c dd e p, fieri ; h, ministris 
duci [see Buchanan] : — but d, facere ; so all gr, e^w Trot^crat. 

t ib. 35 (before hominibus) ab. So also CT, ®', and gg p (gr E, airo) ; similarly e h write de : — 
but all vg else (so edd), and c d dd, super (with most gr, iiri). 

ih. 36. D has dissipati (as all vg) — [not dispersati as wrongly given in W-W] ; gr, SieXv^rjo-av. 

§t ^*- 37- dissipati D sol (vg), and /: — all vg else (and edd), also d dd e, dispersi; gg, dissoluti 
{h diverges) ; gr. Steer Kopmo-OTja-av. 

§ ih. 39. conserunt. So D, with S only (but S', corr.) : — all else, consenserunt. 


§ t V. 40. cessos [sic]. D sol (vg), with {caesos) h, also {add eos) e gg and Lcf. :— all else (and edd), 

§ V. 41 (after nomine) dni. So D, with © only : — nearly all else, vg (and edd) and vtt dd gg h, ihu, 
with gr mss 5 13 15 18 36 42 69, &c. ; but e, dni ihu, with gr E and a few. All gr MSS else (and d) om, 
with some mss ; a, few mss write xp'o-roO (so F, CT,/, xpi) ; a few others, airov (no lat). 

§ vi. 3. iestamenti. So D (txt) ; but (mg) testimonii (as all else). 

t ib. 10 (after spiritui) quo. So also G, CT, e g^ h {d, in quo) :— for qui of most vg (and edd), 
also c dd gg p t ; ®, quae. — Here, qui is ablat. ; gr, <5. 

§ il. 1 1 . sumserunt. D sol, by lapse for summiserunt of all else ; gr, virk^aXov. 

§t?'J. It. conciiauerunt. D w/ (vg), and giggh: — for commouerunt of all else (and edd); gr, 

vii. 7. deseruient {mihi). So also AG, CT, IMOU, ©R', z.nA c d dd e p :— but F, SU', BKRV (and 
edd), and gg, Iren., seruient. The gr is Xwrpeva-ova-iv, — not hovXeia-ova-iv (or — uo-iv), as in preceding 
sentence, where all have seruierint?- 

ib. 19. expugnarent. % D (txt) sol; corr., exponerent (mg) with all else ; gr, tov Troieiv .... eKOera 
■\ ib. 21. nutriuit. So also (of vg) M and S (also cl), with (of vt) gg p : — but all vg else (and 
W-W), also dd, enutriuit ; all gr, aveOptij/aTo ; d, educauit. 

ib. 25. per manus. So also G, M, c dp' : — all else (and edd), per manum (with gr). 

§1 ib. 27 {btWeen principem and iudicem) aut. D sol (vg), with dd e gg p (gr E, ■?) : — all else (and 
edd), et. 

§ \ ib. 30. in monle. D sol (vg), d gg: — all else (and dd), mantis; all gr, incl. D, tov opovs. 

§ ib. 45. D sol here writes iessu (for iesu (so edd), or ihu, as most) ; gr, i-qa-ov, (= iosuae) ; and so 
xiii. 6 infr (where see note on hariessus) ; so again, Hebr. iv. %? 

§ ih. ib. (before dauid) in dies. So D sol (vg) ; d gg, ad dies: — all else (and edd), in diebus; gr, 
ecus ruiv 17/x.cjQcav. 

X ib. 46 (before iacob) deo. So all vg (and edd), and nearly all vtt ; with gr ACEP, &c., ©eo) :— 
of vtt, d alone has domui; with gr J^BDH, o'ko). 

ib. 53. in dispositione. So also F', CT, MOU, © (also cl) :— but AFG, IS, BKRV (so W-W), 
c dd p', in dispositionem, and so d, in dispositiones (gr, eis StaTayas) ; gg and Lcf. have in ordinationem ; 
gi t, in ordinatione ; others variously. 

§f z'i. 59. accipe. So D with R alone (vg), as also deg^ggmp: — all else (and edd), suscipe. 
Of other vtt, h t (so Ambr.), recipe. All gr, Se^at. 

f viii. 3. trahehat. So D with A sol (vg), also gg: — A' and all else (and edd), tradebat (irapcSlSov). 

ib. 8 {ait&T/aclum est) au/em. So also C, S, R, with gr i^ABC, &c., Se:— but gr EHP, &c., W, 
and so eggp, el; gr D, re; d om: — the rest (and edd), ergo (no gr, ovv). 

§ ib. 9. magnus. So D with V only (vg) : — the rest (and edd) magus (gr, /iayevuv). Of vtt, d has 
magika faciens ; e, magiam faciens ; gg, magias exercens (Iren., magicam exercens): — p alone, magna faciens. 
See xiii. 6 infr, on magnum. 

ib. ib. seducens. So all vg (and edd), c dd, and Iren. : — but d, mentem auferens, gg, et demeniabai; 
gr, iiuTTavuiv ( — io-tZv), which seducens ill renders.' Of other vtt, ep mistranslate by suadens. 

§ ib. 10. haec. D sol (vg), with/': — all else, Mc, 

§ ib. 1 1 (after propter quod) diridebat. D sol ; for dementasset ; gr, 8ia to ... . e'f eo-TOKtVai (see 
on ver. 9 supr^. 

§ J z'J. 29. adiungere. D w/ (/, iungere) ; gr, KoA\ij^5jTt)* : — the rest, adiunge te. 

§ tb. 30. occurrens. D jo/: — all else, a</ [or ac] currens ; gr, Trpoa-Bpa/jiiDv [cp. v. 16 supr). 

' For deseruio = \.a.Tptvij), cj>. xxvi. 7 (where the mss are divided nearly as here), with xxvii. 23 (where 
all read deserv.); also xxiv. 14 (all exc. F, s). In the only other place where karp. occurs in Acts (vii. 42), 
D and all vg have serv. ; but d e p, deserv. Thus the balance is in favour of deseruient here. 

2 In this last place cl has iosiie, but iesu in the others. 

a W-W point out that d renders i^ea-Trja-av (Lc. xxiv. 22) by seduxerunt. 

* This may be cited as a case of correction after the gr. 


viii. 30 (after audiuit) ilium. So also AG, CT, IMSU, ®, and dd t .-—but F, O, BKRV (and edd), 
with e gg p, eum ; gr, avrov a.vayivtoa-KOvro<s. 

ih. 33. lollelur. So also A, CT, lOU, ©R (so cl), and c dd e (not gr E) p t, Iren. :— but FG, MS, 
BKV (so W-W), and gg, tollitur ; all gr, atpcrai. 

ih. ih. a terra. So also A, IT, ® ; dd e t, Iren.:— but FG, C, MOSU, BKRV (and edd), egg, de 
terra. All gr, airo t^s y^s. 

ib. 34 (after profetd) dixit hoc. So also SU, ® : — the rest, dicit hoc (Xeyet toSto), with all vtt (exc. 
/, haec"). S om hoc ; gr B ow tovto. 

ix. I. inspirans. So D with F alone (vg), and / (gr, e/AweW) :— A, I, BKRV (so W-W) 
aspirans: — G, CT, MOSU, ®R' (so cl), and c dd e gg p' t, and Cassiod., spirans. 

§ t ih. ib. minas. D sol (vg), also e gg, and Cassiod. : — all else, minarum ; gr, aTretX^s. 

§ ih. ih. c{a)edes. So also FG, (I)S, 0R', with e gg (p), and Cassiod. .-—all else (and edd), c[a)edis; 
gr, cf>6vov. 

ih. 2. uilae. D with M and V only : — for uiae of all lat else ; with all gr, htav. 

§ ih. 5. D misplaces qui dixit, after quis es due, and then expuncts (but fails to replace, before quis). 

§ ib. ih. (before ego sum) ilk ait. So D with (of vg) S only (but S prefixes et) ; with (of gr) i^ and 
a few mss (6 Se {Ittcv), and so gg, at ilk dixit ; — again, gr E, &c., 6 8e k? Trpos avrov ; ® (and similarly 
e p t) dns autem ad ilium ; also gr HLP, 6 8c ks d-mv, and so h, et dixit dns : — all vg else (without verb), 
et ilk (or at ilk, T, U), and so edd ; gr ABC, &c., o Se. 

§ f ih. 6. intra. D sol (vg) ; with e gg : — all else, ingredere. 

ih. ih. oportet. So also A, B, and e {h ?) : — all else (and edd), oporteat (cp. iv. 12 supr). 

ib. 8. induxerunt. So §f D (txt) sol (vg), with ep : — but (mg) introdux., with all vg else (except 
h, dedux. ; again, ^g, intrauerunt). 

t ih. 1 1 . surgens. So also AG, CT, lU, BKRV, c dd e gg t; with nearly all gr, ava<Trd.<s : — but F, 
rU'RV (so W-W), surge (only) ; with gr B {avacrra), but no vt :— again, G', MOS, © (and cl), surge et 
{p, exurge et) ; no gr. 

f ih. 12. ponenlem. D with F, O, and /: — all else, in [or im'] ponentem (so edd) gr, eiriOivTa. 

ih. 19. dies aliquos. So also A, IS, e' i {-^fxepa^ Ttvas) ', — all else, aliquot {or aliquod). 

§ ih. 22. docens. D with ® only : — all vg else, adfirmans (gr, crvfjij3i^a.^oiv) ; vtt vary. 

§f z'i. 31. aeckssiae habebant. So (of vg) R only (but corr.), with e ggp; after gr EHLP 

&c. ; — all else, singular. D, with these gr and vtt, writes the following verbs also in pi. ; the other gr 
and lat, in sing., for the most part. 

ih. ih. § D at first had nomine (before dni) ; but corr. (pr. manu) limore, as all else ; and gr. 

§ ih. 32. dum pertransiisset. So D, with sol: — but AFG, CT, IMU® (and edd), also c dd t, and 
Cassiod., d. pertransiret; S, BKRV, d. transiret {transeuntem, ep; gg, cum circuirei) ; gr, Biepxo/Ji,evov. 

f ih. 36. (before quaedam) erat. So also SU, gg m p; gr, ^v : — all e\ie:,fuit. 

ib. ib. dona. D with A sol : — all else (and edd), dorcas, or — chas ; gr, SopKo.?. 

§ ib. 37. leuassent. D sol: — for lauisseni (cp. on Lc. v. 2, p. clix supr. 

ih. 38. db ioppe. So (variously spelt) all vg (and W-W), and p' t [cp. ver. 43, and x. 23 infr) ; all 
gr, T^ 'IdtraT; : — but cl, and sixt, with dd gg p, ad ioppe{n). 

§f ih. 41. conuocans. D sol (vg) ; m t\ so e p, uocans (to like effect, gg) ; gr, (fxovija-a^ : — all else 
(and edd), cum uocassei (C, R, cum conuocasset). 

ib. 43. in ioppen. So also CMS, ® (U, p, in iopen; G, in ioppem): — the rest mostly in ioppe (so 
edd) ; gr, iv loinr-g (see on ver. 23, and x. 23, xi. 5 infr). 

§ ib. ib. curiarium. D with S only, for coriarium. 

X. 7. qui adherebant. So also 10; and ep (sing.); gr, tSv Trpo<rKapT€povvTO)v airio: — all vg else 
(and edd), qui parebant ; d gg, qui praesto erant. 

ib. 15. secunda. So also CT : — for secundo of all else (and edd); gr, la Sewepov (I, gg, om). 
Cp, xi. 9 in/r. 

f ib. 20. cum illis. D with F only (vg), / gg p : — all else, cum eis. 

ib. 23. ab ioppen. So also AG, lOS, d (cp..ix. 38 supr) : — but most vg and vt, ab ioppe (so edd) ; 

gr, OKO idirTTTJS. 


, X. 28 (before mihi) sed (or set). So also G', CT, IMO, B'® (and cl), cddpt:~a\\ else, ei{so 
W-W)j, gr, /cd/tpi. 

t «■*• 30- quariana. So also AG, C, MO', ® ; dd gg (so W-W) :— FG', lOSTU, BKRV (and cl), 
i e p, quarta (most gr, reTopT);?) : — again, gr D, rpmjs, d, tertiana. 

%\ib. 35 {timet) deum. So D with U (but corr.), c^^:— all else, eum ; with, all gr. 
tb. 42. iesiificare. So also S, R •.—all vg else (and edd), tesiificari, and so most vtt ; but d, 
protestari\ /, contestari. 

§ ih. 45. ohstupebanl. D fo/: — all vg else (and edd), also most vtt, ohsti{u)puerunt ; gr, i^ia-Trjo-av. 
xi. s (i» ««z'/a/«) W//1W. So also A, C, OS, ® (U, topen) d {e, ioppem) :— FG, IMT, BKRV (and 
edd), also c dd gg, ioppe {p, iope) ; gr, ev ttoXci lotnqj. 

§ ib. 9. secunda. So also only: — for secundo (see on x. 15 supr). 

§ J tb. II. eramus. So also I only (vg) ; with gr SABD, rnxiv (but </, «ra«/) : — all vg and vtt else 
(and edd) eram ; with gr EHLP and mss, ■^jajyv. 

ib. 17. qui credimus. So also G', CT, OSU, /:— all vg else (and edd), and ggp', qui credidimm; 
but d e, credentihus ; all gr, iricrT«ij<racriv. See farther in Subsect. II supr, on this verse. 
§ ib. 28. ex his. D with R sol {y^),p: — for ex eis of the rest (and edd) ; gr, H avrw. 
§ ib. 29. unusquisque. D sol (R, c gg p, quisque) : —for quis of all else (and edd). 
§ xii. 4. custodiri eum. So also ® only (vg) :— AFG, CT, MO (so W-W), d e, cuslodire eum ; gr, 
^vXao-o-etv airov (but D om o-vtov): — again, [ad) custodiendum {eum), SU, BKRV (so cl), c dd gg p, Lcf. 

j- ib. 5. ad dnm. So also OT, gg, Lcf. : — the rest, ad dm ; gr, irpos tov ^v (but B om). 

§ z3. 7. f/«/z"/. So also R only (vg), p : — R' and the rest (and edd), mostly adstitit (variously 
written) ; gr, eiriuTq. 

§ ih. 8. perge. D sol : — {ox praecingere (all vg), or praecinge te {d e) ; gr, ^Scrat. 

ib. ib. gallicas. So also FG, S •.—galliculas, A, C, O (and W-W) -.—caligas, MTU, B®KRV (and cl), 
egg; {e, calicas ; dd, caligis ; dp, calciamentd). 

§ ib. 13. cl\ode. § D (txt) sol : — for r[A]o(/i?, of the rest, and so D (mg). 

ib. 20. tyris. So also OS, ®, for tyriis; — also, § sydonis, with ® only (vg), for sidoniis (or sy — ). 

§ ib. ib. omnes. D sol : — for un[i]ammes, of the rest. 

§ ib. ib. plaio. D sol : — for blasto (or plasto). 

I ib. ib. ualereniur. D sol, for alerentur, of the rest generally (®, haberentur) ; gr, Sta to rpi^ea-dac. 
§ t'5. 2 1 . continabatur. D w/, for contiondbatur [or «Bf — ] of the rest. 

II f ib. 22. uoces. So nearly all vg (and edd), and d gg : — but M, uoce ; U, uocem (also (/i^) ; 
e alone writes uox ; so gr, ^miri (D alone (fxavaf). 

§ 2'i. 23, dei. D w/, for (/«z" of all else. (Note that D usually makes the converse substitution.) 

§ ib. ib. consummatus. D sol for consum\_p'\tus of all else. 

f ib. 25 (before hierusolimis) ab. So all vg (and edd), and d dd e gg; with gr A (e| Upouo-aXiy/t), 
or DE (diro Up-) :— against ^<BHLP (eis Up-). 

xiii. I. simon. D w/ (vg), but so cl : — all else, and W-W, symeon (or simeon), and so vtt. 

§ ib. 5. misterio. D w/, for ministerio, of all else. 

2(5. 6. magnum. So also G, STU, BKV, /: — G'T'U', with AF, and all else (vg), and /', magum 
(^gg, Lcf., om). Cp. viii. 9 supr. — See also ver. 8 in/r., where V has magnus, with gr H (jne'-yas) ; all gr 
else, fidyos, there as here. 

§ ib. ib. bariessus, D sfil, for bariesu of most vg, and edd (but some abbreviate, as also vtt). Cp. vii. 
45 s»pr)- 

§ ib. 10. ;f/zV. So A' only :— A, CT, M, ©R (and Lcf.), filius :— the rest, fili (so edd). 

ib. 12. A and most read doctrinam (so W-W): — G, M'U', ®V (so cl), doctrina, with c d dd e gg p, 
and Lcf. D writes doctri, indecisively. 

§ ib. 13. pofo. D sol, iox papho (edd), — variously spelt in mss. 


xiii. 13. nauigarent. § D sol (txt) : — but D (corr.) — assent, as most (some, — asset, against all gr). 

ib. lb. discendens. D with O (also M, B, descendens) : — for discedens of the rest (d7ro;(u)p);<ras). 

§ ib. 14. sahhati. D sol: — for sabbatorum, of nearly all lat, vg and vt ; — gg, sabbato, with gr D (not d). 

lb, 16. indicans. So D (txt), with S, BK: — but D', indicens with the rest (and edd). 

ib. 20. quasi post- cccctos- 1- annos. D and all vg, also c dd p, with gr KABC, &c., place these 
words before et post haec (koi /xcra TaCra); — not (with gr DTEHLP, &c.) after them; gr D, and d gg, 
om post haec, but connect the 450 years with what follows. But all gr read &% Ir^crw TtTpaKoa-ion koI 
TtevT-qKovTa ; and so d (annis for post annos of vg) ; similarly gg, per annos. 

§ ib. 24. plebi. D sol (vg), e sol (vt) : — ior populo, of all else. 

§ t ib. 26. dnm. D with B alone (vg), and / / : — the rest, dm. 

t ib. 27. qui habitant. So also C, O, R ; c dd t : — for qui habitabant, of the rest ; gr, o\ KaroiKovvTei. 

ib. ib. inpulluerunt. § D (txt) sol: — but (mg) inpleuerunt, as all else. 

ib. 32. earn. So also A'G, MU, V (and cl), and c d dd e p {gg om) :— against AF, CT, OS, B0KR, 
/, ea (so W-W). 

§ ib. ib. repromissionem. So also M'O, and t' only (likewise d, pollicitationem) : — the rest, repromissio 
{SSi promissum). Thus D is supported by M' e' only, in reading eam . . . repromissionem. 

\ ib. 33 (after //zVj) nostris. So nearly all vg (and edd), and cdddt; with gr Ji^ABCD : — CT 
(also sixt),/, uestris (no gr) : — e alone, eorum nobis, with gr C'EHLP, most mss {gg, eorum only). 

ib. ib. psalmo ii. So all vg : — d gg, primo ps. ; with gr D, and many early Fathers. 

§||f ib. 34. cum. D sol (vg), and gg; so d, quando (gr D, ore) : — all lat else, quod; all gr else, ort. 

ib. ib, suscitauerit . So also A and nearly all vg (or resusc, SU, also /), and so W-W : — TW, 
suscitauit (so cl), and d gg {e, resuscitauii). 

§ ib. 36. suae generationi. D sol : — all vg else {in) sua generatione, and most vtt ; all gr, tSi'^i yevea, 

ib. 41 {non credidis ; corr.) non creditis. So FG, C, MSU, B®, and d e p : — but AG', T, KRV (and 
edd), and c dd g, non credetis ; gr, ov fj-rj Tna-Tivarjre (O, non credidistis). 

ib. 46. repellistis. So also BR; A, M, R', d gg p w, rep\_p'\ulistis :— FG, CT, SU, ®KV (and edd), 
c dd e, repellitis; gr, aTrw^eio-^c. 

§l|f ib. 47. lumen. D with ® sol (vg), if (with grD)^;^: — A and nearly all vg else (and W-W), 
in lumen ; but F, 1ST, B, in lumine ; C (so cl), and dd, in lucem ; gr, €« <^<os (exc. gr D which om prep, 
with our D). 

§ ib. ib. in gentibus. D with ® sol; d super gentibus : — nearly all vg else (and W-W) gentibus {om in), 
also dd gg; gr D, toZ% edvecnv: — C (and cl), gentium ; all gr else, iOvSiv. 

ib. 48. gauisljy. So also SU, p : — the rest, gauisae {gentes). 

§ ih. il. dnm. D sol: — for uerhum dni, of all lat else ; and all gr, exc. mss 68 216, tov Oeov. 

ih. 50. primes. So D (txt), with all vg ; §t D (mg) principes, with d gg; all gr, tous ■tt/jiotovs. 

§ ih. 5 I . iaconiam. D sol (S, iconiam) : — for iconium. 

\\il. 52. uero. B sol {vg), d gg {e, autem); gr KCDELP, most mss, 01 Se :— the rest (and edd), 
quoque {gx KSi, mss 13 18 33 34 37 100 214, oi're). 

§ xiv. 3. dantes. D with T only: — nearly all else, {dno) dante (but d, dans ; O, gg, dando). 

§ ib. 5. gentium. D sol (vg) ; e, sol (vt) ; all gr, tGv iOvSsv: — but rest of lat, gentilium (so edd). 
Cp. xix. 1 7 infr, where gr has IW-qa-iv. 

§ f ib. 6. fugerunt. D sol (vg) ; d gg : — nearly all else, confugerunt ; all gr, Karecfivyov. 

§ f ib. 1 3 {sacerdos) autem. D sol (vg), also d e gg; gr EHLP, o Se Upcus ; D, oi S^ t'epeis) : — the 
rest, sacerdos quoque; gr i^ABC, mss 15 18 36 40 105 214 216, o re upcvs. 

§ il. ih. in ciuitaie. So also M'O {ante in ciuitate) ; d, ante ciuitate [«V] : — for ante ciuitatem of all 
else ; gr, Trpo t^s ttoXcojs (D om r^s). 

§ ih. 15. dnm. D with only, for dm. 

ib. 18. suaderent. § D (txt) ; h, [_per']suaserunt : — D (mg) sedauerunt, with all else. 

§J ib. 22. et exhortantes. D sol (vg), /' w/ (vt) ; with gr C and some mss, kox wapaKoXovvrei 


{h, et rogantes): — A, IMU, ®'KRV (and edd), also c, exhortantesque \ with gr i^'D, 7rapo(ca\owT«s 
T« :— FG, CT, OS, B®, deggp, om copulat. ; with gr l^ABEHLP, &c. 
xiv. 25. italiam?- So also CT, O'S', R, / :— for attaliam ; gg, achaiam. 

t XV. I. salui fieri. So too AG, CT, IM, ®, cdddeggp :— but F, SU, BKRV (and edd), saluari; 
gr, (TwC^vai. 

ib. 2. ex aim. So also AG, IMSU, B®KRV (and cl), c dd -.—hnt V, CT, S' (so W-W), ggp, ex 
t'lh's («, ex eis) ; gr, e^ avT&v. 

ib. 3. conuersationem. So also AF, IMSU, BKRV, e :— but F'G, CT, S', (and edd), c dd gg p, 
conuersionem ; all gr including E, ttjv ima-rpotti^v — (none, ava<rTpo<t>riv). 

ib. s- qui crediderunt. So also ISU, ® (and cl), d dd i—ihe rest (vg and vtt), qui crediderant 
(W— W) ; gr, TreTTio-TevKOTes. 

ib. 7. quaesiio. D with C only (vg), p only (vt) ; J^AB, &c., ^i;t^o-£cos :— all vg else (and edd), 
conquisitio (gr CDEHLP, &C., crwfijTiytretos) ; vtt variously. 

§ % ib. ib. in uobis. D sol (vg), Iren., with gr i^ABC, &c. (eV vfuv) :— nearly all lat else (and edd), 
in nobis, or (^gg), inter nos ; gr DEHLP, [ei/] ij/aiv (but a few mss om ; and so (vg) SU). 

ib. 10. uestri potuerunt. D sol : — for nostri (without potuerunt) of all else. This variation of pron. 
agrees with that of verse 7 {uobis) ; but in this ver. no gr has vfiZv for ■q/jiZv. 

ib. 14. Simon. So also A.TU, ®V(and cl), also/; so too sj/mon, M, K, cgg:—¥G, S, ®'R, simon 
(W-W) ; CI, B, d e, symeon (gr, cruytiewv). 

§ ib. ib, uoluit. D sol: — nearly all vg (and edd), uisiiauit; T, suscitauit, also gg; d e (against E), 
prospexit ; gr, iina-KhfiaTo (E, eTreXefaro). 

t ?J. 16. ««W/. So also F, CT, ISU, B®',cdddegg, Iren. :— AG, M, 0KRV (edd), and p, decidit. 

§ ib. 20 (before y?)r«2fa/w«e) a. D sol (vg) : — all else, et (so edd) ; gg, Iren., «/ a. 

ib. ib. (and 29), subfucatis. See for this word on verse 29 in Subsect. 11 supr. 

§ zi. 22 (after cognominaiur) bamabban. D w/ (but similarly S, /, barnaban) ; F, barnabas ; d, 
barabbas (after gr D) : — but the rest (and edd), and c dd e gg p', barsab'[b']as (or — am, or — an) ; gr (exc. 

D), Pap(Taj3ll3']av. 

§ ib. 23 (after seniores) hiisfratres^ {qui sunt). D sol : — all else, fratres, his {qui sunt). For D, cp. Orig. 
(lat), Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. xiii. 3, 4 (lib. ix, c. 28), " presbyteri fratribus qui sunt" (cited byTisch.). 

%ib. 27. missi sumus. Dsol; for misimus. 

§ ib. 28. nihil nobis {inponere). D sol: — for nobis, nihil {inponere). 

ib. ib. haec necessaria. So also A', B (and cl), dd (to like effect e ggp', also Iren., &c.) : — A and 
all vg else, also p, haec necessario (so W-W) {d, haec quae necesse est) ; gr, rovriov [twv] ETravayKcs, or 
(i^AC, &C.) eir' dvayKais. 

§ f ib. 29. agite. D w/, with gr CDHL and a few (irpafaTe) : — for agetis of most lat (and edd) ; 
and so gr i?ABP and most (irpaleTe, E, irpa^rfri) : — but F, C, ISU, d (against gr !>) p, agitis (no gr). 

ib. 31, cons\_o']ulationem. So also (accus.) F, CT, IS, R: — against A and all other vg, and edd 
(ablat.) ; vtt vary. 

§ ib. 32. confirmati sunt. D sol; — for confirmauerunt, of all else (exc. d, perconfirmati sunt). 

ib. 33. misserunt. So also (perf.) AG, M : — the rest, miserant (so edd). 

§ ib. 38. orabat. D sol: — all vg else, rogabat (gr, ^^I'ov) ; e, uolebat; gg, postulabat : — but d, nolebat; 
gr D, oiiK ifiovXero. 

t«'i. ib. a {pamp.). So also AFG', C, IMO, ®, cdddeggp:— G, SU, BKRV (and edd), de; 
(T om) ; all gr, diro. 

§ ib. 39. discessio. D sol, for dissensio of all (vg) else (irapo|vcr/xds) ; vtt vary. 

§ 2'J. z'i. ut discenderent. D to/, for «/ discederent {airox<apt<T6rjvai). Cp. xiii. 13 5M/r. 

§ ib. 41. perambulant .... confirmantes. D w/ (vg) ; / w/ (vt) [as to pi. ptcp. only] : — for perambu- 
labat .... confirmans, of the rest ;,and edd), with minor variations ; and so all gr. See also in 
Subsect. II supr, on this ver., and farther in Subsect. v infr. 

§ xvi. I . nomine erat illi. D sol (unmeaningly) : — for erat ibi, nomine. 

ib. ib. iudeae (or — aeae). So D (txt), with AG, CT, M (edd), ddd; all gr, 'lovSat'as: — but D 
(mg) uiduae, with F, lOSU, B®KRV, c gg {e with gr E om). One gr ms (25), 'lovSat'as xw<*s. 

' D in mg. notes, " non ipsa occidentalis." - Mispr'mtei /ratribus in W-W. 

2 B 


xvi. 4. qui esseni. So most vg (and W-W) :— OSU (and cl), d ddef, qui erant ; gg om. 
ib. 8. troade. So also CT, 10, ®R, p :— the rest, troadem {d, troada). 
%ib. II. a troia directo cursu. D sol; for a troade recto cursu, of all else. 

t ih. 12. prima partis macidoniae. D with nearly all vg (and edd) ; and e (against gr E) gg :— but 
A and {+ in) another, prima parte maced ; and another, and c, primae partis .macedy, W, dd p' 
(/, prima partis), prima pars maced. ; gr E, TrptoTT? /tepi's. Most gr, irpairT; [t^s] /teptSos [t^s] /xaxeSoi/tas 
(none has ■jrpuiTrj's /ieptSos). But gr D, Ke(j)a\r] t^s /j-o-k. ; d, capud macedoniae. 

§ ib. ih. confirmantes. D sol :— AG, CT, IMOU, ® (and edd), and c dd p, conferentes :— F, S, BKRV 
(sixt.), consistentes : — of other vtt, d e, demorantes {gg, demorati). All gr, Siarpt/Sovrei. 
§ t ib. 1 3. sabbati. D sol (vg) ; d gg (vt) :— all else, sabbatorum. 

§ zJ. zJ. loquebantur. D w/ ((/, loquebatur) :— but gr D, with all gr else, iXaXovfiev ; and so all lat 
else (and edd), loquebamur (exc. Iren., locuti sumus). 

ib. 15. iudicatis. So also O, ® ; and «:— the rest, iudicastis; all gr, KeKpUare. 
t zJ. 17. mbis. So too nearly all vg (and edd), also d ddgg; with gr i^BDE, &c. {ifuv) :— but R, 
wizi (also e, against gr E), with gr AC'HLP, and most (17/Aiv). 
§ ib. iq. sps (= spiritus). D sol; for spes, of all else. 

§ ib. 26. uniuersa eorum. D w/; for uniuersorum (or omnium, d gg) of all else ; gr, ttoi'tui'. 
§ z'S. 27. fugere. D .ro/; lox fugisse (or effugisse, d e gg) of all else. 
z'5. 35. /ec^w. So also F, I':— for lictores, of the rest. § Again, ver. 38, with I' only. 
ib. 37. in puplice condempnatos. See on this ver. in Subsect. 11 supr. 

§ ib. 40. et consu{o~\lantes. D w/:— for consolati sunt . . . et. See on this ver. also in Subsect. 11 supr, 
*t xvii. 6. or3?»z. So also FG, CT, O, KV (and W-W), de gg; gr, t^i' olKovn.ivi)v :— A, IMSU, 
B®R (and cl), c dd p, urbem. 

§ X ib. ib. qui .... concitauerunt. D sol (with gr, ot . . . avao-TaTMo-ai/res) : — all vg else, qui .... 
concitant ; and most vtt (but ^^, jz<z' .... inquietant ; d, qui .... inquitauerunt [sic]). 

%\ib. 13. et ibi. D w/ (vg) ; gg sol (vt) :— for «/ z7/z<c of FG, M'SU, B®KRV (and edd), 
c dd e p' : — or et illic of A, CT, IMO, dp; gr, KaKci. 

ib. 18. stminiuerbius. So too AG, IMU, ® (and edd), c dd p, and Cassiod. in loc. :— F, S, BKRV, 
seminator uerborum (O, uerbi; CT, disseminator), also ^^/' (<^, spermologus). 

§t 2i5. 23. scriptum est. D ^0/ (vg), ^^ w/ (vt) :— the rest (and edd), scriptum erat (but e om erat) ; 
gr, tmyiypawTO, D, ^v yeypa/x/xevov. 

§ z'5. 24 cz^zzz jzV (fj. D with W (vg) : — all else, cum sit dominus (all gr, kv/dios). 
§J ib. 27. uestrum. D w/ (lat) ; with gr AL, mss 31 108 195 (v/jlwv) : — all else, nostrum {rj/xav). 
ib. 29. enim. So also IM, R: — all else (and edd), ergo, 
ib. ib. sumus. So also F, O : — all else, simus. 
ib. ib. artificis. § D (txt) sol : — (mg) artis, as all else. 

§ ib. ib. cogitationibus. D sol : — all vg else, cogitationis (exc. I and S, cogitationes ; vtt vary), 
g ib. 32. audiamus. D with O only: — all vg else, audiemus (as gr) ; also vtt (exc. dp, audimus). 
ib. 33. illorum. So also AG, C, ®, and d: — all else, eorum. 

§11 xviii. I. regressus. D sol {vg), with rf (similarly gg, recessit et ; h, cum recessisset) ; gr D, ava\<i>- 
pijo-as : — the rest (vg) egressus (so edd), also e ; all gr else, x^P'tr^as. 

ib. 3 (before artis) erant^^K So also CT, O (and cl)', also c, Orig. (lat, ut supr, lib. x. 18) : — the rest 
of vg (and W-W), and dd e gg, erat (so h, esset ; but m, essent) ; gr, 8ia ro... dvai. 

ib. ib. erant^'^'! {autem). So also A', C, U, KV (cl), and dd p ; but e m, Orig. (lat), erant enim ; all 
gr, r}<Tav yap : — AG, IMOT, ®R, erat autem (so W-W) ; but c, erat enim : — F, S, B om these words ; 
d gg (with gr D) also om them, and to end of verse. 

ib. 4. et intrabat. See in Subsect. 11 supr, and in Subsect. v infr, for this verse. 
I ib. 7. inde. So all vg and e gg p {kKiSey) : — d h, ab aquila (gr D, diro toC dxvXa, also ms 137). 
§J z'5. 8. crediderunt et. D w/ (vg) ; « (w/ vt) ; gr mss 37 137 216, iiria-Teva-av KaC: — the rest, 
credebant et {h om) ; all other gr, iTrta-rtvov Kai. 

§ ib. 10. quomodo. D sol (unmeaningly) ; for quoniam of all vg, or quia or the like ; all gr, Ston. 

- So cl of 1592 ; but most later edd, erat. 


xviii. II. in eis. So also A, CT, 0, ®, and ep; gr, iv avroh :— all vg else (and edd), and c dd A 
apud eos {gg, inter; d, penes), 

ib. 1 6. eminauit. So also A, MU, R, dd:—\>\xX FG, OSU', B©KR'V (so edd), and c p, minauit; 
gr, oJDjXao-tv :— CT, and e gg, dbegit ; d, dbiecii ; h, dimisit (gr D and ms 133, d7re\u<r£i'). 

§ ib. 18. qui . . . tonderat. D sol\ F'G, OU, KRV (and cl), also M, qui . . . totonderat; gr, xetpa- 
fkivo'i : — F, CT, IMS, B® (and so W-W), c p, qui . . . totonderani (A, qui . . . Monderunt) ; with no gr. 

\ib. ib. habehat. So also F'G, CT, OSU, BKV (and cl), c d dd e gg p{h); all gr, eTxc :— AF, 
IM®R, /, habebani (and so W-W). 

t ib. 23. galHiae. D sol; to like effect, ggp':—AFG, C, OS, BKRV (and edd), galaticam, also 
dd e ; MS'TU, and dp, galatiam (© />', galaciam) ; gr, yaXoTiK^i/. 

J ib. 24. appello. D m/ (gr i^, mss 15 180, dTreXXjJs) : — all vg else, apollo (gr, djroWoSs). 
t ib. 27. crediderunt. So also F, STU, BK, ^^/>:— but AG, CI, MO, ®RV (and edd), and c dd, 

II xix. 6. manum. So also AG, C, lOU', ®, d dd (with gr D) :— F, MSTU, BKRV (and edd), 
( ( gg p, manus; with nearly all gr. 

ib, 8. ingressus. So also CT, dd-.—Vae rest, introgressus. 

§ ib. 9. discendens. D to/ (vg) ; e sol (vt), but />, discendit et: — all vg else, discedens ; gg, discessii et; 
d, recessit et ; all gr, dTroo-ras. See on xiii. 1 3 supr. 

\ib. II. nonmodicas. So also G', CTM, R, cddggp-.—hwt AFG, IM'OSU, BKV (and edd), 
non quaslibet (® has non modicas quas), similarly d e; gr, ou ras Tvxovcras. So, xxviii. 2 z>?/r, all vg 
render same gr by modicus. 

ib. 12. «/ defereniur. So also G, I'MOST : — nearly all else, ut deferrentur (so edd); most gr, 
<5o-Te a.jro<l>epe(r6ai : — but d gg, ut inferrentur {^x DHLP, &c., wo-re iiri<f>epe(xdaL). 

It ib. 13. adiuramus. D sol, with gr HLP, &c.: — all lat else, adiuro, with gr J^ABDE, &c. 

§ ib. 17. gentibus. D sol : — all vg else, gentilibus ; d gg, grecis ; all gr, iKXtjo-iv. See on xiv. 5 supr. 

ib. 18. uenierunt. §D (txt) to/: — D (corr.) ueniebani, as all else. 

§ ib. 19. denarii eorum. D to/; for denariorum, of all else. 

z"i. 20. uerbum .... confortabatur. So also G, OS, R; c e'/ {e, fortabatur) : — all vg else (and edd), 
confirniahatur {^layviv) : — but gg, conualescebat ; d with gr D deviates and amplifies. 

§ II j- ib. 2 1 . transire macidoniam et achaiam et. D sol (vg) ; d e gg; with gr ADEP, SieX^eiv t'^v p.. xat 
ax; KaC : — all else (and edd), transitu macedonia et achaia ; gr XBHL, SieXSuv t^v p.. koI d^. 

§ ib. 23. tribulatio. D sol: — all else, turbalio, or {d gg) tumulius (gr, rdpaxoi). 

II f /J. 25. A?V conuocans eos ■ . . So CT, and d gg (gr D and ms 137, oStos (rvvaOpoCcra's tovs . . .) : — 
all else (and edd), quos conuocans et eos (exc. O, conuocasset for conuocans et); gr, o£s a-vvaOpoicrai koi 
Toils .... 

zJ. 27. deputabitur. So also A, CT, IMOS, d e p :— FG, S'U, B®KRV (and edd), c dd, reputabitur 
(gg, aestimabitur) ; gr ADE, Xoyto-^jjo-erai, J^BHLP, &c., \oyi(T$r)vai. 

ib. 35. sedasset. So D with lat in general ; but (D mg), %suadesset {sol). 

§ ib. 38. aduentus forinsecus. So D (txt) : — (mg) conuentus forinses, with all else. 

ib. ib. proconsules. So also A'G', M, BKRV (and cl), cdddeggp'; gr, avQiitaToi. : — but AFG, 
CT, lOSU, ®, and p, pro consulibus (so W-W).' 

§ ib. 40. hodie tamquam. inquieti et tumultiossi. D sol; gg, quasi seditiosi hodie {cp. d, hodie accusari 
seditionis, with gr D, a-^/xepov evKaXetcrOai o-Tdcreus) : — lat in general, seditionis hodiemae ; gr, o-Tcicreto? 
irepl T^s <rrjp,tpov. 

§ XX. I. populus. D to/ (unmeaningly) ; iox paulus, as all else. 

§i!'J. 4. sosi pater (in two words). So D to/;' G', MSU, R, cddggp', sosipater; a few gr, 
aoMrCnaTpos : — AFG, C, lO, B®KV (so edd), and d ep, sopater; most gr, o-uttotpos (a few, o-aJo-tVaTpo?). 

§ ib. ib. peri. D sol; AF, _^n' (gr ms 13 and a few, irdpov) : — most vg, pyrri (so W-W) : — ® (and 
Q\),pyrrhi; other lat variously; gr J^ABDE, «fec., nruppov (but HLP, &c., om). 

1 Note that A, S, BK, and p, reaid^ro consule for avOvTrarov, xiii. 8 supr. 

' D seems to take sosi as the name of a man, who was " pater peri." So mg, " proprium uiri." 

2 B 2 


§ XX. 9. eductus a {somno). So also (but om a) AG, IMOU, (and W-W) :— CT, deductus prae {e gg, 
dedudus a) : — F, SU', BKRV (and cl), and c dd, ductus ; d, praeceps dalus est a ; gr, /corei/tx^^s airo 
(or wd, D and some mss). Note that only d e gg{no vg) join D in ins a. 

\ ih. 13. nauigammus. So also most vg (and cl), and vtt : — AG, enauigauimus (so W-W); gr, 

§ \ lb. lb. in nasson. D sol (so gr mss 15 18 36, vdcrov) : — nearly all else (and edd) in as[s']on ; 
gr, €7rt T. a.(T[cr]ov; but LP, and some, 6ol<t[(t'\ov. 

ih. 14. conuenissemus. So also O, ©, and c ; also {+ nos) S'U (similarly M, praeuenissemus ; dd, 
uaiissemus): — AFG, lU' (edd), e p, conuenisset nos ; gr, (TW£y8aX[A.]ci' 17/1*11' (similarly d gg, conuenil nos). 
Again, S, BKV, /', inuenisset nos, CT, praeuenisset nos, &c. 

§ ih. ih. militen. D sol {cp. xxviii. i infr.) :— AF, CT, IMSU, B®KV (and edd), also c d e ggp', 
mi{y)tj){i)lenem. (or n) ; G, mitelenen ; R, p, militene[_m'] ; most gr, ft-nvXrivriv (or — ivrjv). 

ih. 21. gentibus. So also C, W:— the rest (vg), gentilibus; d gg, Lei., graecis; all gr, IW-qtriv. 
Cp. xix. 17 supr. (also xiv. s ; and xxvi. 17, 20 infr). 

ih. 23 (after tribulationes) meae. So also AF, MSTU, BKRV, p :— but A'G, C, IM'O, (and edd), 
and c d dd e gg, Lcf., me ; with all gr. 

§ { ih. 30. resurgent. D sol: — for exsurgent of lat in general ; but gr,]<Tovra.i. 

% \ ih. ih. ut adducant. D sol (vg) ; e sol (vt), and Lcf. (other vtt variously) : — all vg else, ut 
abducant ; gr, tov diroo'Trai' (D, roi) o.trouTpk^f.i.v, d, ut abstrahant). 

Note that d hiat, xx. 31 — xxi. 2 ; gr D xxi. 2-10. 

ib. 31. memoriam. So also F, CT, SU, c p: — all vg else, memoria. 

ih. 32. sanclificalionibus. §D (txt), with one vg' (see Berger, Hist, de la Vulg., p. 175): — (nig) 
with all else, sanclificatis omnibus; gr, Tots ^jyiao-^ieVois TrScrti/. 

xxi. I. choo. So D sol; G, coo; AG'L p, cho (so W-W); e, co (others variously); gr i^ABCDE, 
&c., kG : — F, MSU, BKRV, c ggp', choum (cl, coum) ; gr HLP, &c., kS)v. 

t ih. ib. pataram. So also FG, M'STU, B®KRV (and cl), c ggp (but no gr) :— A, Ml' (so W-W), 
and e, paiara (gr, iraTapa). 

ib. 3. cum apparuissemus. So also BKRV (and cl), c dd e p' {gg diverges): — AFG, CT, IMOS, 0, 
paruissemus ; gr AB'CEHLP, &c., dva^auevm, — but gr j^B and many mss, ava<t>dvavTK ; d has uidentes, 
gr D hiat. U p alone, cnm peruenissemus . 

ih. ih. nauigabamus. So also G, C®, and / (eirXeo/aei/) : — nearly all lat else (and edd), nauigauimus ; 
of gr, E' alone ejrAcvo-a//.ev. 

t ih. s- expletis. So also FG', IMOSU, B0KRV (and cl), c dd ggp -.—hut AG, CT, explicilis (so 
W-W); gr, oTe 8c h/ivero i^afyrCcrai (D /liat ; d diverges). Cp. ver. 7 infr, iox explicilis and expletis.^ 

§ ih. ih. usque ad foras ciuitatis. D (txt) sol ; {mg) usq ; /oris ciuitatem : — the rest, usque foras 
ciuitatem (so edd) ; T alone ins ad; e alone writes y^m. All gr, ecus cfo) r^s irdAecos (but J^, 68, om Icds). 

§f ih. 6. reuersi sunt. D sol (vg), rf^^ (vt) : — all else, redierunt. 

ih. 7. nauigatione explicita.^ So also AG, CT, IM, B0KRV (and W-W), also c p (to like effect, 
gg) (F, dd, explicata) ; all gr, tov itXovv hiavxxravTei : — but G', I'O'SU (and cl), expleta ; d, expedila 
{e diverges). 

Ij ib. 14. quaessiuimus. D sol (by lapse) : — for quieuimus, of all vg else. 

\ ih. 16. ias{s)onem. So also G', lOS'U, R; dd gg p ; gr ^^, tao-oi/t : — but A'F'G (and so edd)- 
mnasonem {e, mnasoni) ; most gr (D hiat), /x.vd<Toivt : — AF, CT, MS, B®KV, c d, naslsynem. Note that 
D sol places /tunc iassonem before apud quern. See also on this ver. in Subsect. 11 supr. 

II f ih. 20. dnm. So D, with only (vg) ; d gg only (vt) ; after gr DHP, &c. : — all else, lat and gr, ^i. 

ib. 24. sciant. So f D (txt), with KR, gg {d, cognoscant); gr HLP, &c. [not D] yvoio-ii' :— but 
corr. {prima manu) scient with all else (so edd) ; gr (inch D), yvoitrovTat. 

I "Bible de Pay" {Cod. Putean.). 

' In ver. 7, the gr verb is Stavv'o), which is there aTra^ Xeyd/t. in N.T. ; e^aprl^a) occurs else only 2 Tim. 
iii. 17 {ei'^pTia-/x€voi = instructus (vg)). 

' D (mg) explains "finita uel renuniiaia." 


xxi. 24. ambulans. So also FG, IMOS'TU, BKV, dp :— AF'G', C, S, ©R, c ddggp' {e deviates), 
ambulas (so edd) ; gr D voptvov (?). 

§ ih. 26. explicationem. D sol (gloss interl., finem ; cp. gloss on ver. 7 mpr. ; see also on ver. s) : — 
all else, explefionem ; gr, t^v iKTrXiJptocriv. 

lb. ib. offeretur. So also F, IMOS, B®:— AG, CT, U, 0'KRV (and edd), offerrelur; gg, oblaia 
esse/ ; d, oblata est. 

§f ih. 28. docet. D sol (vg) ; with (vtt) c d dd gg: — all vg else, docetis (gr, o . . . . StSao-Kuv). 

§ ib. 29. uiderunt. D with ® only (vg) ; / only (vt) : — all else, uiderant (gr, rj^rav [TrpojeupaKoVts). 

ib. ib. induxissef. So also AG, CT, O, © ; c dd ep (d, induxit):—YG', IMSU, BKRV (and edd), 
introduxisset ; to like effect gg. All gr, eitrijyayev. 

»J. 32. decurrit. So also M and S, </</ (and cl) : — all lat else (and W-W), decucurrit (exc. O, 
cucurrii ; d, procucurrif) ; gr, KartSpaf/.a/. 

ib. 33. ««/ {quid). So G', CT, and c dd: — the rest (and edd) et; and so gr. 
§ xxii. s- testimonium reddidit. So D with I only (gr B, iixaprvpei.) : — the rest, testim. reddit (exc. 
CT, reddent); gr, fjiaprvpei (D, p^prvpi^a-ei [c? kiat, xxii. 2-10]). 

ib. 14. «/ cognosceris. So also lOS, </: — the rest (and edd), ut cognosceres ; exc. e, cognoscere; all 
gr, yvSsvai. 

§ ii. z'i. uideris .... audieris. So also S ; (O, uideris .... audires) : — rf «, uidere .... audire ; gr, 
tSeiv .... ttKovcrot : — the rest (and edd), uideres .... audires. 

% II xxii. 15. j««'. So also ©W (vg) ; </ jo/ (vt) : — for quia ; gr [D hiat, vv. 10-20], on. 
§ II /i. 18. uidi. D w/ (vg) ; d sol (vt) ; gr S, mss i8 36 180, eTSoi' : — the rest uidere (iSttv). 
ib. 22. huiusmodi. So also MO (and cl), with p : — all else (and W-W), eiusmodi; except e gg, talem. 
Note that d finally def., from ver. 20, and gr D from ver. 29. 

§ II f 2^. 23. caelum. D sol (vg); gg sol (vt), also Cassiodor. ; D sol (gr) oipavoi': — all else (lat 
and gr), aerem (de/oa). 

ib. 26. dues. So too A, CT, IM ; — also {ib., 29) dues, with CT, MO, R : — all else (and edd), duis, 
in both places. 

%ib. 28. summa peccunia, D sol: — A, T, egg, multa pecunia, (C, pecunia only): — FG, IMOSU, 
BQKRV (and edd), also dd p\ multa summa ; e, multa summa pecuniae ; p, multa only. All gr, ttoXXov 
[exc. D, irocrov] K«^aXa(ov. On this ver. see also in Subsect. 11 supr, and in Subsect. v infr. 

§ ib, 29. tradiderunt. D sol; for torturi erant, of the rest (vg) ; and to like effect vtt, and gr. 
xxiii. 8. utrumque. So also FG, CT, MOSU, B©, c dd p -.—but A, I, KRV (and edd), and e gg, 
utraque ; with all gr, to. d/xt^orepa. 

t ib. 13. fecerunt. So also IS, and gg: — iox fecerant, of all vg else (and edd) ; e, fedssent. All gr, 
01 ... . iT0Vt\<T6.p.tvoi. { — iJo-aVTes). 

§ lb. 14. nosmet ipsos. D sol (S om ; <?, «w ipsos") : — for «w, of all else (gr, lanTovs). 
ib. 15. consilio.^ So also FG, OSU, B0K: — the rest (and edd), and dd e s, concilio (gr, t<^ 
o-weSptij)) ; — similarly, gg h, Lcf. 

§ f lb. 20. iudei constituerunt. D w/ (vg), with e gg; all gr, ol 'lovSatot <Tvvi&(.vro : — all vg else (and 
edd), and dd h s, iudaeis conuenit. 

§ ib. 26. continentem hunc mundum. D sol: — e gg, habentem formam hanc; gr XBE and some mss, 
l^ovcrav toi' tuitov toBtov; the rest, irtpif)(ovtrav t. tvtt. tovt. : — all lat else, continentem haec (no gr.). 

§ xxiv. 2. tadto. D sol, by lapse : — a corruption of citato, which is read by nearly all vg else (and 
edd), and dd; (or possibly oi accito, as R, c); e gg write uocato. All gr, KX-qOivTO';. 

f ib. 7, intercedens. So D with M only (vg), ^^only(vt): — all else (of those vg which ins ver,), 
superueniens ; of vtt, dd e, transiens {p s om) ; most gr, -irapeXdiav. See more in Subsect. 11 supr on 
this ver. 

§f «i. 10. dicens, D sol (vg) ; gg sol (vt), and Cassiod. (or, as CT, ut dicerei): — for dicere of 
the rest. 

1 But concilium, in ver. 20, with all else. 


xxiv. 12. consensutn. § D (txt) sol: — (mg), concursum, as all vg else (and edd), also dd e {p, concursus, 
gg deviates) ; gr HLP, &C., tTricruo-Tao-iv ; ^<ABE, &C., ivL<rra.<rLV. 

t ib. 14. patrL So also AF, T, R, and most vg (cl, patri el), c dd gg p s :^but G, O, ® (and W-W), 
patrio (so e) ; all gr, TraTpwia. 

§ ih. 17. el uolum. D W :— nearly all lat else (and edd), el uola :— but vtt e gg s om ; as all gr. 

t th. 24. cuslodire. So also A, most vg (and cl), also all vtt :— but G, I, © (and W-W), cuslodiri; 
all gr, Tripiia-Oai. 

t ti. 25. xpm ihm. So D, with (also cl), and dd e, with gr J^BEL and some mss : — A and 
most vg (and W-W) invert the words (FS, Thu xpo; gg s, xpo ihu). The other gr (i^'ACHP, &c.) 
read yfiKyTov only. 

lb. 26. Iremefactus. So also IMOT, OR (and cl), c^^:— AFG, C, O'SU, BKV (and W-W), and 
/, timefacius ; gg s, conterrilus ; gr, £/x<^o^os •yei/oynei'os {e, exlerrilus faclus). 

§ ib. 27. adsperans. D w/, for el sperans, of the rest. 

XXV. 12. condlio. So also nearly all vg (and W-W), and c e gg \ nearly all gr, a-vfifiovXiov (but 
C, a-vveSpiov) : — RW (also cl), and ddp, concilio. Cp. xxiii. 15, 20 supr. 

X ib. 14. ibi demoraretur. So D with G only [but G' corr.J ; and so gr HP and some mss, 
SieVpi^ei' cKEt) : — all lat else (and edd), plur. (some, ibi\d.eni\ morarenlur, as CT, I, B®KRV, and c dd p; 
but O alone, ibidem demorarenlur ; e gg, demorarenlur ibi) ; most gr, SieVpi/Sov eKet. 

f ib. 16. dampnare. So also gg, and (damn.) IR' (and cl), c dd: — the rest, donare (/, donari) ; all 
gr, )^apL^ea6ai. 

ib. 17. Aunc. So (as read by W-W) D, with G'B (but Ac of D rather = ^«r, which all other vg write). 

ib. 18. cum adslilissent. So also U, ®, gg: — the rest (and edd), cum slelissent ; gr, a-raOivTH 
[e, stanles). 

ib. ib. malum. So also FG, CT, IMOSU, B®R (and cl), ddp (but no gr) :— A, V, W (and W-W), 
c gg p', malum ; gr AC and some mss, irovripdv (sc, ainav, causam) : — K, mala ; gr J^C, Trovijpd) : — 
£, mails ; gr i^'BE, &c., irov-qpStv (sc, wv, de quibus) : — gr HLP and most om. 

ib. 23 bironice. D sol: — CT, ®, and dd gg, beronic[a]e (so e, ueronice) ; gr C, ^epoviKrj^: — the rest 
(and edd), bernice {BepvUrj's). Cp. xxvi. 30 in/r. 

ib. ib. atrium. § So D (txt) sol\ (mg) auditorium, as all else (exc. O, adiutorium, but O' corr.). 

§ ib. 24. clamauerunt tollite eum de uita non oportet uiuere eum [amplius']. D sol : — nearly all vg else 
(ai)d e&A), petens (or — ntes) et hie clamantes non oportere eum uiuere amplius. Here clamantes (gr J^AB 
and some mss, /SoGvrcs) is read by AFG, &c. (so W-W), also by/ j; but CMR (and cl) and dd subst. 
-acdamantes (gr CEHLP, &c., eTrt^oGr/Tcs) ; e, exclamantes ; c gg p, tndamantes. See on this ver. in 
Subsect. II supr for the words that precede ; and farther in Subsect. v in/r. 

§ il. 25. ipse. So D with M only, for ipso, of all else. 

§t xxvi. I. autem. D sol (vg), with (vt) e gg: — for uero, of all else. 

il. ih. permittetur. So also FG : — all else (as gr), permittitur. 

^ib. 2. accussaretur. D sol (connecting with ver. i) : — all else, accuser. 

il. 3. consuitudinis et quaestionis. So also T, R : — all else (and edd), accus. plur. 

§ ib. 6. tsto. D sol (unmeaningly) : — for sto of all vg else (exc. C, iusto) ; of vtt, c p, asto; gr, 
ia-TTjKa. See on this ver. in Subsect. v in/r. 

il. 7. in qua. So vg (nearly all mss, and W-W) :— but G (and cl), in quam, with e gg; gr, «is ^v. 

§ lb. il. inueniri. D sol : — for deuenire, of most vg (and edd) ; CT, peruenire, as also gg ; gr, 

§ ib. i\. ad extremas. D sol :— for in exteras, of vg in general (and edd) ; gr, cis ras e^w. 

§ ib. 14. «(7«OT dicenlem mecum. D w/:— for «. loquentem mihi, as nearly all lat else (and edd); 
gg, u. loquentem ac dicentem ; gr ^^ABC, and some mss, ^m^v Xiyovtj-av (E, ^(ov^s XeyovoTjs) ; H and 
some, ^. AaXoCo-ai/; LP, and many, ^. Xeyoucrac koI XaXoJo-ai/. 

§ ;'3. 17. gentilibus. D with C w/ (vg) :— all else (and edd), gentibus (tGv jei/wi/') ; see on ver. 20 in/r. 

§ X ib. ib. quos. D sol (vg), « w/ (vt) ; with all gr (o^s) :— all else (and edd), quas. 


t xxvi. 19. uissioni caelesti. So D, with (transp.) RW (also cl), cddggp, and Cassiod. ; but 
BKR'V and e, caelesti uisione [M, caelesti uisionis'] :— AFG, CT, and all else (and W-W), caelestis uisiom's. 

ib. 20. gentilibus?- So also CT, I, ® : — the rest, gentibus {idvtvLv, — cp. ver. 17). 

%ib. ib. conuerlantur. D with only; gg, conuertentur : — all vg else (and edd), conuerterentur. 

§ ib. 21. me (at end of ver.) in all lat else stands (as in gr i^BHP, &c.) before iudei (so edd) ; or 
after it (as in e with gr EL and a few mss ; or after comprehen., as in gg, with gr A. Cp. ver. 24, where 
D w/ similarly reserves te to the end. 

ib. 25. et paulus. So also MSU, BKRV (and cl\ c ddp-.—hni FG, CT, 10, ® (and W-W), at 
paulus {gg, at ille; h, qui) ; A, ait paulus; e, paulus autem ; gr, 6 hi [ttovXos]. 

ib. ib. loquor.. So also A, IMT, ®RV (and cl), also c </</:— but FG, OSU, BK, p, eloquor; e, mitto ; 
gg h, emitto, gr, oTro^Seyyojuai. 

ib. 28. in breui. § D (txt) sol: — (mg) in modico, with the rest {Iv 6\iytf).' 

ib. ib. fieri. So all vg, with gr EHLP, yivi<rdai: — \_h possibly] ya«r« ; [else] only Cassiod., 
in loc, "quod eum sub celeritate uelkt facere Christianum." So gr i^AB, &c., iroiijcrai. 

f ib. 30. beronice. So also CT, ®, dd gg: — the rest (and edd), bernice. Cp. xxv. 23 supr. 

t ib. 31. xnnculorum. So also A, CT, IMO, ®, and h p {Bea-ixZv) : — the rest (and edd), also dd gg s 
{e hiat), uinculis. 

§ xxvii. I . dicreuit autem. D sol : — all vg else, ut autem iudicatum est ; gr, <us S« kKpid-q. The dicreuil 
of D may represent the cKpivev (o ijye/xtoi') which mss 64, 97, insert here (so p', preses iudicauit ; cp. also 
gg h, uocauii). 

§ ib. ib. agusti [sic]. D with S only (vg) : — for augustae of all else. 

ib. 2. incipientem. So also {sc, nauem) AG, C, OU, B©KR (and W-W), /, and to like effect, j r 
and so gr XAB and some mss, fi-iWovTi {sc, irAoicji) : — but F, IMST, V (and cl), c dd gg (and to like 
effect h), incipienies ; gr HLP and most, /ieAAoi/res. 

ib. ib. egressi sumus. So also A, M, ®' :— but FG, CT, lOSU, B®KRV (and edd), c dd p, sustulivius ; 

ib. 5. lystram. So nearly all vg (and edd); also gg, and Cassiod. in loc; with gr ^A: — but I; 
myrram ; h, myra ; gr B, fcvppa ; LP, /ivpo. Bede conveys that E (which here deest) had <Tj).vpva.v. 

ib. ib. (after quae est) cyliciae (or cil—). So also {cil — ) A, O, and dd p : — but all else (and edd), 
and c gg h, lyciae (or liciae). 

ib. 7 (before salmonem) secundum. So D (txt) with AG, CT, IMO, B© (so edd), and p: — but 
D (mg) with F, SU, KRV, c dd p', iuxta ; gg, per ; gr, KOToi. 

§ ib. 10. quoniam . . . incipiet. So D with ® only: — for q. incipit of the rest (ftc'AXeti/). 

ib. II. nauiculario. § D (txt) sol (but so Bed. ap. W-W) ; § D (mg) nauiclero : — all vg else, nauclerio 
(AF, C, OS, B0KV, and W-W), or nauclero (IMS'TU, R, and cl ; c p); gr, vauKA.»;pa, :—gg {h) s, 
magistro nauis. 

§ ib. 13. nauigabant {cretam). D sol, for legebant {-irapiXiyovTo) of vg iu general ; CT, subleuabanl \ 
gg, colligebant ; h, sublegebamus ; s, sublegebant. 

§ ib. 15. fluctibus. So D and one other (Par. 11505), ioxflatibus, of all else. 

ib, 16. cladia. So §D (txt) sol: — (mg) clauda (so C, ®, claudam); with gr XA and a few mss,, 
KAavSa (likewise HLP, &c., /cAovSrjv) ; p, claudia: — but A and most (so edd), and dd s, cauda; TR^ 
egg, caude {ox — ae); Hiei on., De JVomm. Pr., cauden; F, IS, caudam ; G, caudiam; gr^'B, KauSa. 

§ f ib. 17. adiutorio. So D (txt) sol (vg) ; gg sol (vt) ; gr J^, jSorjOiav :— D (mg) with all else, plur. 

§ f ib. ib. utebamur. So D sol (vg), with gg p s (no gr) : — for utebantur of the rest. 

ib. 21. egredi. So also A, M, ©R; dd:—\>\xt FG, CT, OSU, B®'KV (and edd), c p, tollere (gr,. 
di'tiyto-^ai). Cp. ver. 2 supr. (and note that ® is corrected in opposite sense in these two verses). 

§ ib. 32. abscidere. So D sol (vg, but U, abscedere) ; c sol (vt) : — all else, excidere {iKTrecnlv). 

If ib. 33. dies. So X> with S only (vg), as also gg sol (vt, but adds est a qua) : — all else, die. 

» Elsewhere (see on xiv. 5, xix. 17 supr) D usually has gentes for tOvq, where the rest, gentiles. 
2 Note that H e def., xxvi. 29— xxviii. 26. 


xxvii. 33. ieiunii. So also T, V : — all vg else, ieiuni; gg, sine cibo; gr, oo-tTot. 

ih. 38. adkuabant. So also FG, {gg, releuabant) : — A with vg in general (and edd), ad (or al — ) 

§ tb. 39. cognoscebat, D sol (U, ^gg', cognoscebant ; gr B, iylvaicrKov) : — the rest (and edd), agnoscebant \ 
gr, i-TTeywoxTKOv. 

tb. 40 {cum anchoras) abstulisseni. D (txt) with AFG, CT, IMO, © (and W-W), c dd p (§ D mg, 
wrongly, obtulisseni) :— but SU, BKRV (and cl), also p', sustulissent \ gr, Trt/juXovres {gg, colligentes). 

lb. 44. ut . . . accedereni. § D (txt) sol, for ut . , . euaderent of D (mg) and all else ; gr, Stoo-m^^vat. 

§ xxviii. I. militinae. D sol (vg) ; likewise militine, Hieron. ut supr: — AF and most, militene 
(so W-W), (or — ae, or — es), and so gg p ; one MS (vg) melilene (with gr B, /ieXiTT^vi;) : — T, mitilenae, 
and f/' similarly : — I, meletae; W, milite; </</ (and cl), ot^/zVa (gr J^AB'CHL, /xcXtVij ; P, ficXt^rr}). Cp. 
XX. 14 j«/r, for converse error of D. 

lb. tb. uocabatar. So also IMT, ®'KRV (and cl), with c dd p: — vg in general (and W-W), uocalur; 
_gg, uocitatur; gr, KaXctTai. 

§ X ib. z. recipiebant. D sol (so Bed., Retradt. — presumably from e) ; with most gr, TrpocreXd^ovTo : — 
but all vg else (and edd), reficiebant {gg, refecerunf), with gr J^, mss 137 216, Trpoo-aveXa/i/Savor. This 
reading is plausibly alleged by W-W {Praef., p. vi) as a correction made after the gr. 

§ t ib. 4. quern. D sol (vg), omitting eum, with gg s (on this ver. see in Subsect. m supr) ; after 
the gr, Of Siao-co^e'vTa : —the rest (and edd), qui . . . eum ; exc. FG, B, which read qui but om eum. 

§ ib. 7. puplici. D js/ (omitting ^«z) : — all vg else, publii (or puplit) qui; gg, puplio (with the 
gr). W-W conjecture that D intends pupli ci = puplii qui. 

§ ib. 10. honeribus. D w/: — for honoribus, of all else (and edd). 

ib. II. cemauerat. D jo/, for hiemauerat. Cp. Mt. xxiv. 20, where R {rushworth) has cheme, and 
dim (also r^) chieme, for hieme. 

ih. ib. insigne castrorum. So also AFG, lOSTU, B®KR, and ^ / :— A'G'S'T'U'V (so edd), cas- 
torum ; C (txt), casthorum : — but C (mg), parasimus dioschori ; so gg, parasemum dioscore ; after gr, 
irapaa-iiiJLm SiocTKoupois. See on this ver. in Subsect. 11 supr, and farther in Subsect. v in/r. 

§ ib. 12. siricussam. So {sy{ox i)racusam) FG, lOSU, B®KRV (cl), and cddp: — A, CT (and 
W-W), gg, sy{Qx i)racusas ; as gr. 

§ ib. 13. circumnauigantes . D sol: — for circumlegentes of most vg (and edd); CT, circumdegentes ; 
gr, ■KipiikBovTK, or (J^B) 5re/jteXoi'T£S. 

t ib. ib. secundo. So also AG, ggp : — the rest (and edd), secunda. 

§ ib. 15. concurrerunt. D w/ : — for occurrerunt, of all else ; gr, [e^JiyX^ov ets aTrarriyo-ti' (or virdvT — ). 
Cp. V. 16 j«/ir. 

z3. 21. a/z'^«z'<f. So also SU, ®, j :— AFG, CT, I, BKRV (and edd), with c dd, quid -.—O om, 
■with ggp. 

\ib. 25. disceptabant. D sol: — for discedebant of all vg else (and edd); gg p s, dimittebaniur ; 

gr, (XTreXuoi'TO. 

§ ib. zii. prospicielis. D sol: — most vg (and edd), perspicietis (iSijte) ; others variously. 
ih. 30. conduciu. So also A, MU : — the rest, conducto (and so edd). 

§ ib. ib. qui introiebant. D sol, (M, e, qui introibant ; so gg, s, introeuntes) : — the rest of vg (and 
•edd), qui ingrediebanlur (gr, rows eto-tropeuo/AeVous). 

Subsection v.— DOUBLETS. 

The frequent and sometimes large insertions which occur in the D text of 
Acts have disfigured it by many double renderings, indicating a want of care 
or critical skill on the part of the scribe or his supervisor. 

ii. 41. qui ergo reciperunt et crediderunt sermonem eius. So D. All vg else, qui ergo receperunt serm. 
eius (gr i^ABCEP, &c., 01 phf ovv diroSeH/^evoi tov Xdyov auTou) ; and to like effect e gg {p). But d, hi ergo 
credentes sermoni eius ; with gr D, ot p.\v ovv Trio-Tev'trai'res t. Xoyoi/ avToO. Our reading includes both verbs. 


iii. 10. inpleti sunt siupore et extas\f\i stupefacH {in eo quod contigerai). Here, the first member of 
the passage adequately represents the gr {iir\riQ-$-qa-av ^a/iySous koX s/co-Tacretos). And so all vg render 
(exc. that CT write mentis consternatione for extasi), none of them supporting D in adding stupe/acti. 
Of vtt, e gg likewise ignore that addition (but substitute ammiratione for extasi) ; while d has terroris et 
stupe factionis. But h p render (as if the gr were eTrX^o-^ijo-av Od/jL^ov^ koL i^ia-rqa-av) impleti sunt ammira- 
tione et stupebant. The stupefacti which D appends to the ordinary vg reading seems to be derived 
from a vt source akin to d or to h. — The marginal \_exces~\su mentis of D is given also by Bed. in loc. ; 
but see for it also x. lo, where mentis excessus = £/<crTacris. 

V. 29. ohoedire oportet deo magis quam hominibus at illi dixerunt deo respondit autem petrus {deus 
patrum . . .). Here, D (mg) notes that the first sentence is to be read " suh interrogatione" \ and 
accordingly D (txt) appends the answer, deo ; with the support only of a few vg mss and the mg. of © 
(which also adds resp. autem p.). In vtt gg h, this additional matter is found with slight variation 
{utrum \h, cui] op. obaudire, deo an hominibus ? At ilk dixit, deo. Et Petrus dixit ad illos . . .) ; but it is 
to be noted that these texts throw the interrogation into an alternative form, by substituting an for 
magis quam. Obviously, the reply deo implies a question so formed ; and does not fit the question as 
stated by D (with the vg in general). This incongruity betrays the fact that D borrows the reply from 
an alien source, but has neglected to reshape the question into correspondence with it. — In Lcf. {De 
non Parcendo, p. 233), the question is cited with an ; e reads, magis an ; but neither of these authorities 
subjoins the answer. In gr D and d {obtemperare . . . hominibus) the words are assigned to the High Priest, 
ix. 32. factum est ut petrum [corr. (interlin.), petrus'] .... deuenire. The edd, with AG', O, KRV, 
c {gg t similarly) have ut petrus .... deueniret (F, S, B, petrus (without ut) deueniret) ; G, MU', B'®, 
petrum . . . deuenire; and so dd p («), with the gr. Our D (both txt and corr.) combines both readings 
ungrammatically. I and TU offend also, in like (though not same) way. 

X. 18. hie illic. Of vg, S alone reads hic\ with vtt d e gg: A and all vg else (and edd), illic (all 
gr, ev^aSe). D adopts both, unmeaningly. 

xii. 10. ultro aperta est eis ah se. All vg, ultra aperta est eis (— ab se) : gg and Lcf., ab se aperta 
est eis (— ultro). By subjoining ab se of vt to ultro of vg, D makes its tautologous reading. All gr, 

xiii. 5. habentes autem et iohannem. All vg, habebant autem et ioh. (and so gr in general, efj^ov Se koi 
tajoivvijv). But gr E reads e)(pvTei koX ttodv. ; and e, habentes et iohannem. Thus D here follows e in 
using the ptcp. habentes, but retains from vg the autem which belongs to habebant. 

XV. 41. perambulant autem .... confirmantes aeclessias et praecipiens custodire praecepta. Between 
the former and latter parts of this clause (the plur. perambulant .... confirmantes, and the sing, prae- 
cipiens), the discrepancy is obvious. The former (which all vg else, with all gr, write as sing.) must 
have been derived from an exemplar (presumably vt) which read it as plur. (so vt p has confirmantes) ; 
the latter, which most of the best mss (vg and gr) om, is found in the sing, only (see also on this verse 
in Subsect. 11 supr, p. clxxxiii). D therefore has here joined two readings, derived from different 
sources, and inconsistent inter se. 

xvi. I. et cum circumiisset has nationes peruenii autem. The introductory words et cum , . . nationes, 

are inserted else only by (of vg) O and a few later mss (vg) ; they are also in d gg, and (of gr) in D 

only. Here, they are incompatible with the following autem (which is not in d gg, — nor is its equivalent 

to be found in gr D). The scribe of our ms therefore has evidently borrowed the former words from vt, 

, and inserted them in its vg text, heedless of the autem which he has left as witness of the interpolation.' 

il. 26. confestim et aperta sunt statim ostia. No other vg has two adverbs here ; the gr, irapdxpy;iJi.a. 
only ; M (vg) alone (but I similarly) reads confestim aperta sunt . . .; the rest, et aperta sunt statim (so 
AFG, CT, O® ; and so A dd p) — or, et statim aperta sunt (SU, BKR). Our MS begins by following M 
and ends in following A, &c. 

xvii. 19. non pos\/\imus scire doctrinam quae est kaec noua quae dicitur a te doctrina enim noua {quaedam 
infers). D is alone among lat, and without support from gr, (i) in reading doctrinam. and placing it 
after scire, and (2) in connecting doctrina (which in common with the rest it retains after a te at end of 

1 Note the large p with which he begins ;peruenit, as the opening of a new paragraph ; betraying the 
absence from his vg exemplar of the previous words {et cum circumiisset has nationes). 

2 C 


verse) with ver. 20, "dodrina enim noua" (all latelse, "docirim ? Nona enim"). Apparently the editor of D 
(or of his archetype) intended dodrinam (as object to scire) for a grammatical correction (whether of his 
own or borrowed from some source not now known), and placed it accordingly ; but instead of striking 
out the offending dodrina, retained it in connexion with noua of next verse, — transposing enim, and 
thus making the latter verse barely intelligible [dodrina being hardly possible there, unless read as an 
ablative). However this may be, it is plain that dodrinam .... dodrina — where all other iat with the 
gr (rts T) Kaivy] avrrj .... SiSaxn ;) give the word once only, and that in the nominat., at the end of the 
passage— is a dittograph rendering. In its minor variations, the prefixed non, and the subjunct. 
possimus, D has the countenance of vg CT, OSU, c dd, and a few gr mss, for the former ; of / only, 
for the latter. 

xviii. 4. ei intrahat in synagogam per sabbatum omne disputabat. Of vg which retain this verse 
(rejected by many of them, though by no gr) nearly all read (as cl, with all gr exc. D), et disputabat in 
synagoga per omne sabbatum : T alone (with no gr), et ingrediebatur in sinagogam per omne sabb. The 
reading of our MS is formed by combining these two. — The like combination is to be found in d and 
gr D, — ingressus autem in synag. per omne sabb. disputabat (cicnropEud/tievos Sc eis rr]v crvvaymyTjv Kara irav 
a-dp^wTov 8t£\e'y€To) ; also (to like effect) in h (et cum introiret in syn. per omnem sabb. disputabat) : but it 
is to be observed that these avoid the asyndeton {intrabat .... disputabat) by which our MS incurs 
suspicion of being conflate. 

It is possible, however, that our D borrows from a text founded on gr D ; and that the absence 
of et from before disputabat is casual. 

ib. 21. ualefaciens dixit Oportet me diem solennem . . . . facere hierusalem dicens iterum reuertar ad uos 
dec uolente. Nearly all vg MSS else (exc. M®), have merely ualefaciens et dicens iterum .... uolente, 
without the preceding words, dixit Oportet .... facere hierus. ; which are found in vtt dd gg, and in d 
(with gr D and HLP). Here our D again, by the repetition, dixit (from vt) . . . dicens (of vg), betrays 
that it has interpolated its vg text from vt. 

xix. Q. ab hora • u ■ usque ad horam • uiiii- et decimam. For this addition, D has the support of (vg) 
G and © only; of (vtt) d gg; with (of gr) D only (drro <S/3as '!' ems SeicaTTjs). Of these, G alone gives 
the number as • uiiii ; the rest, decimam : D offers the feeble compromise, nonam et decimam. 

xxii. 28. summa peccunia. Here FG, and most vg, with vtt dd p' , read (see on this ver. in 
Subsect. IV also) multa summa (gr, TroXXoi) KetfiaXaiov) ; A and Y, with c and gg, multa pecunia. Our D 
drops multa, by which all the rest properly render ■woWov), and combines summa of FG (treating it as 
adject.) with pecunia of A. 

xxiii. 5. princeps est summus sacerdotum, No Iat else interpolates summus here. Two renderings 
are used for dp;(i£pev's, — princeps sacerdotum as here and in ver. 2 [supr.) ; and summus sacerdos (as in 
ver. 4). Our text is an ill-devised combination of both. 

xxvi. 6. isto [corr. sto^ et iudicor pro quam iudicio subiedus. The words pro quam^ evidently have 
got in here wrongly; removing them, we have the tautologous phrase sto et iudicor iudicio subiedus. 
All vg else have sio iudicio subiedus for the gr, ta-Tr/Ka Kpivo/jLevoi, which vt (gg) renders sto et iudicor. 
Thus our text is an obvious example of a dittograph rendering. 

xxvii. I. cum reliquis uindis custodibus [corr. custodiis (with all vg else exc. G)]. Here the vg 
rendering of /cat .... Sea-fiMra^ is cum .... custodiis [cp. ver. 42 infr.) ; for which e and f (vt) give 
et uindos. Our text gives thus again an instance of dittography, — vt followed by vg. 

ib. 4. propterea eo quod essent. All vg else, propterea quod ; vt h and s, eo quod. These two 
equivalent renderings of Sia to elvai are combined (unmeaningly) in our text. 

ib. 18 and 20. permanente autem ualde autem .... tempestate (ver. 8). The first two words appear 
here in no other text, Iat or gr ; they plainly belong to ver. 20, which in gg begins with perseuerante 
autem tempestate. Instead of these latter words, our D (with vg) has tempestate .... inminente, in middle 
of 20. Thus permanente .... inminente . . . . , in our text, are alternative representations of (xet/^wvos) . . . 
iiriKUfjiivov, — again presenting a doublet rendering. 

' These words are probably meant as a marginal note on ver. 7, offering g'uam as a correction (in quam 
uenire, for in qua inueniri) for qua in that verse (" qua pro quam "). 


xxvii. 33. quaria decima hodie dies . . . . permanetis. This ungrammatical sentence seems to be an 
unsuccessful compromise between [a) quaria decima hodie die expeclantes .... permanetis (of vg, with gr), 
and {V) quariadecima dies est hodie a qua .... manetis {o( gg), — or something similar. Our text retains 
dies and om expeclantes, with gg; but with vg excludes the est a qua by which gg varies the grammar of 
its rendering. 

ih. 35. sumens panem et gratias egit. Again a compromise: vg has sumens panem gratias egit ; 
gg, accepit panem et gratias egit. From gg our text has the et, which there follows fitly after accepit, but 
is out of place after the ptcp. sumens which it retains from vg. 

ib. ir. in naue .... cui erat insigne castrorum [corr., castorum'\ parasse modios xx' chorus (mg, 
chororum). All vg read (with slight and immaterial variation) cui erat insigne castorum merely. In 
their stead, gg sol writes, cui erat parasemum et dioscore (gr, Trapaarnxio Sioo-Kopois). C (vg) in its text 
agrees with the rest, but in its margin supplies the reading of gg as alternative — " alibi, parasimus 
dioschori,'" Here we have the key to the strange perversion exhibited by our MS : it is evident that it is a 
dittograph — representing the gr first by the vg rendering, then by the transliteration offered by ^^g-. Our 
scribe, not understanding &\t\i%x parasemum [or — imus^ oxdioscoris [ — cori, or — coroe, or — core~\, has made 
a desperate attempt to break up the two Greek into three Latin words, parasl/^e modios chorus [«m], — 
writing ch for c (as C does), and substituting the Latin termination — us. — Of the insertion of xx 
between the sundered parts of dios-core, the explanation is not obvious ; but the suggestion may be 
offered that the exemplar whence the transliteration was derived had in its margin, along with the 
words on the margin of C, the symbol xx, representing the twin stars of the Gemini (as a note on 


dioscori), arranged thus — modios xx. — Then the double x came to be read as the numeral xx, and to 

' cori 

attach itself naturally to modios (preceding) and chorus (following), — the latter representing the Hebrew 
cor ("ID), gr, Kopos, conveying the equation, 20 modii = i cor." But what bearing this computation 
could be supposed to have on the narrative of the voyage does not appear. 

Here then we have the three stages of a dittograph clearly exemplified. — First {a) is the trans- 
literation of the Old Latin, [cui erat"] parasemum [ef] dioscore (as in vt gg), supplanted in the vg by cui 
erat insigne castorum : next (5), the vt transliteration set as an alternative on the mg of vg C : and 
finally (c), the marginal alternative transferred to the text of our D, — but in a form so disguised 
by the attempt to manipulate it into the semblance of Latin as to be at first sight unrecognizable. 

On the other hand, it may be convenient here to note an instance in which D has with wise 
discretion guarded against a dittograph which has gained wide currency among the best vg mss. 

iv. 21. D alone of vg reads {clarificabant dnm) in eo quod factum erat. This (except in its habitual 
misreading dnm for dm) adequately represents the gr (eSofa^ov tov diov ctti t(3 yeyoi/oVi). Of vtt, p 
agrees (only with est for erat) ; dd, with equal propriety, renders in eo quod acciderat ; other vtt to like 
effect {d, super quod factum est; e, in facto isto; gg, Lcf., in facto sinjply). But nearly all vg else, some 
A and F (and so cl), give clarificabant id quod factum fuerat in eo quod acciderat ; thus combining the 
renderings of dd and D, but altering the latter by omitting deurn (or dnm) contrary to all gr, and 
supplyirig id instead to serve as object to clarificabant. CT alone of vg avoid the error of omitting 
deum, and they write in id for in eo. W-W adopt (but with t) the reading of D, but record Bentley's 
approval of that of dd. 

Another passage, though not yielding an example of dittograph, may properly be treated of 

XXV. 24. In the opening of the speech of Festus, in which he describes the conduct of the Jews 
both in Jerusalem and at Caesarea, the gr has merely to irXij^os r^v lovSaiW Iverv^ov ixoi iv t£ Upoo-oA. 
Kol ivOaSe, ySofivres. . . . These words the chief extant vtt {gg s) accjirately render by multitudo ludeorum 
adiit me hierosol. et hie clamantes .... From this rendering all vg diverge ; (i) by ins petens before et hie 
clamantes (so AFG, lOSU, B®KV) followed by W-W), or (2) by writing petentes et {ac^clamantes \om hie'], 
(so CT, M, R, and cl) ; — of which two forms the latter is to be rejected, — both because it is plainly a 
mere attempt to make the two participles correspond as to number, and because it departs from the gr 

' Usually, however, the cor is reckoned as equal to 30 modii, 
2 C 2 


by dropping out the reference to Caesarea (ei/^aSe). D, alone of lat, and supported only by two versions, 
with no extant gr authority, suhst a long passage detailing and explaining what passed between him and 
the Jews at Jerusalem, for which see D text, p. 370 (f. 1 88 v' b). For the like insertion in the Harklensian 
Syriac, and that in the Bohemian version, see Tisch. in loc, also W-W. As it stands in D, it is 
evidently incomplete, as appears from the disjointed sentences, " non potui Iraiere eum ..." (addressed 
to Agrippa), followed by "si quis autem accussat eum sequalur cessaream" (addressed to the Jerusalem 
multitude). Some connecting link has here dropped out. The Syr. supplies words to this effect (rendered 
dicebam ut {sequeretur) ; but the Boh. (as cited by Tisch.) is even more defective than the lat of D. 
Dr. Blass {Lucae ad Theoph., lib. 11) conjectures the gr original of the interpolation to have read, kav Be 
Tis avTov KaTtjyopeiv GiX-y, eAeyoi' a.Ko\ov$€iv |U.oi ets Kaurapuav. 

Subsection vi. — General Survey of the D-Text of the Acts. 

In this Book the deviations of our ms. from the normal Vulgate are much 
more considerable in importance as well as in number than in any of the Gospels; 
and in view of the very peculiar character of its text (noticed above, p. cxxix) 
and of the fact (see p. cxxvii supr) that here it stands alone as a Celtic copy of 
the Acts, — not (as in the Gospels) one of a group, — it has seemed desirable to 
record them here with greater fullness. Accordingly, the foregoing Summaries 
largely exceed in length those of the preceding Sections, and include not only 
variations which are in themselves noteworthy, but also many which are signifi- 
cant mainly as illustrative of the relations of the text with the authorities, or of 
the habits of the scribe. An examination of them will enable the student to form 
an estimate of the nature, value, and peculiarities of the D-text of the Acts. 

(i) In a general way it may fairly be described as of similar character to the 
D-text of the Gospels : a text fundamentally Vulgate of good quality, but largely 
affected with the Old-Latin intermixture which characterizes the Celtic type of 
Vulgate. So W— W write {N. T. Lat., pars II, fasc. i ; Praef, p. v), " De huius 
codicis indole in Actibus fere eadem dicenda sunt quae in Kuangeliis . . . funda- 
mentum bonum habet et interdum textum Hieronymianum uel solus uel cum 
paucis comitibus conseruat . . . ; sed Celticae familiae uitiis obnoxius est . . . 
ueteris etiam Latinae reliquias hie illic ostendit, et textus occidentalis proprietates 

But this, though an accurate description so far as it goes, is hardly an adequate 
one. It is to be added that in the Book of Acts, as exhibited in our ms., each 
side of this twofold character presents itself in a form more strongly marked than 
in the Gospels. Thus the contrast between the two elements is sharper; we find 
in it a purer Vulgate, combined (often abruptly) with large alterations and 
additions of " Western " type and origin, affecting alike the form and the substance 
of the text. 

(2) That the Vulgate basis of the D-text is present in the Acts in a purer form 
than in the Gospels, is emphatically marked as the judgment of W-W, by the 
fact that they promote our D to stand (though last) among the five codices 


which form, for the text of Acts, their Classis I (GCAFD), whereas, for the 
Gospels, it is ranked only with the rest of the Celtic family as one of Classis II. 

Here, as in the Gospels, but more definitely, our D tends to agreement with the Amiatine (A) rather 
than the Fuldensian (F). — Moreover it appears now and then, against AF combined and all or most of 
the rest, on the side of G (Cod. San-Germanensis), which ms is held by W-W to stand first of all among 
the witnesses to the true Hieronymian text of Acts. In one notable instance (iv. 21), our D alone 
preserves the reading which W-W accept as right and adopt into their text. — With yet another MS of 
Classis I, Cod. Cavensis (C), it shows a marked affinity, and through C with that other which is so 
frequently noted in the combination CT, Cod. Toletanus (T). Its frequent agreement with Cod. 
Monacensis (M) is also noted by W-W ; and in some parts of the Book it associates itself (not 
continuously, but in many notable single points) specially with Cod. Oxoniensis-Selden (0). 

Moreover, without any study of particular instances of the excellence of D 
among Vulgate texts of the Acts, or of its coincidences with this or that one of 
the other Vulgate mss., one may form a sufficient appreciation of its quality by 
simply examining a chapter or two of it, here or there, side by side with the 
authorized printed text. One may, in many parts of our D, read page after page 
without meeting more than a few (mostly unimportant) departures from the 
Clementine standard ; — or, if the comparison be made with the critical edition of 
W-W, one will notice other places (not a few) where, if it varies from the 
Clementine, its variations agree with the emendations of that revised text. — All 
the more marked is the contrast when one suddenly comes upon passages where 
the continuity of its Vulgate tenor is abruptly broken by the intrusion of alien or 
aberrant matter, — of which we shall treat presently, 

(3) But here (before quitting the subject of the Vulgate element in this text of 
the Acts) something is to be said in dissent from the judgment of W-W (/. c), 
who (among other faults of the Celtic family) find in the D-text of Acts the same 
tendency as they justly note in the D-text of the Gospels, to frequent small 
alterations ("uerborum inuersionibus, additamentis, omissionibus"). The 
tendency is no doubt here perceptible, but in a markedly diminished degree. 
Though the variations of our text from the normal are (as above stated) more 
numerous here than in the Gospels, they are not for the most part variations 
of this trivial character. In the Gospels, the endeavour to adapt the text, by 
rearrangement of words or supplying pronouns and other auxiliary parts of 
speech, to the requirements of a reader imperfectly familiar with Latin, is 
apparent all through it, but this treatment does not seem to have been main- 
tained in the Acts, — a book obviously less likely to attract readers who would 
need such help. However this may be, the fact is plain that our ms. presents a 
text of the Acts which is not only in the main sound Vulgate in substance, but 
in a form comparatively unspoilt by the petty manipulation which in the Gospels 
impairs its quality. 

(4) Turning now to the second of the two elements distinguishable in the 
D-text of the Acts — the Old-Latin, we find its presence no less strongly marked 


than that of the Vulgate, though more limited in extent. — Save in such 
portions as have been above noticed, where long continuous stretches of nearly- 
pure Vulgate occur, our D exhibits many deviations from the normal Vulgate, 
and of these the great majority are "Western" readings, due to retention of 
or reversion to some form of Old-Latin. Moreover, in the most remarkable of 
these deviations, it follows the type of "Western" text which manifests itself 
especially in Cod. Bezae (gr D and lat d) — departures from rather than variations 
of the normal text (Greek or Latin), including substantial additions or amplifica- 
tions in which not only the language of the narrative is varied, but fuller details 
and sometimes novel matter are supplied. Of the "Western" readings of our 
MS., W— W (/. c.) note specially about a dozen, including some of the larger 
additions here referred to, and in their Apparatus Criticus they record each of 
them as it occurs. But they seem to have laid hardly sufficient stress on the total 
effect on the general character of the text of our D as a Vulgate MS., in this Book, 
produced by the presence in it of such an alien element in amount so consider- 
able. — This text indeed is nowhere continuously "Western" in any part, nor 
are its "Western " variants uniformly distributed. But it would be easy to put 
forward a collection of readings found in it which, if taken apart from the average 
D-text of the Book, would give it a plausible claim to be ranked among Old-Latin 
authorities. Of no other of the Vulgate copies of the Acts, included in the 
Classes of W-W, can this be affirmed ; from no other of them could any such 
collection be gathered, of substantial and distinctive "Western" readings. — 
And here it is important to note how widely, in this respect, the D-text of Acts 
differs in character from the D-text of the Third Gospel. In both Books, the D-text 
partakes largely of the "Western" character; in both Books the text of Cod. 
Bezae stands high among "Western" authorities. But whereas, in the Gospel, 
our D-text is found (see above, p. clxxv, and other pp. there referred to) markedly 
to shun rather than to accept those "Western" variants which may be distin- 
guished as of the specially Bezan type, in the Gospel (on the contrary) it admits 
such variants freely. — The like observation is to be made as regards the other 
great witness which in the Gospels and Acts associates itself with Cod. Bezae, the 
later Syriac Version (S), known as the Harklensian,^ which presents a complete 
text of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, and an ample apparatus of marginal 
variants, forming together the fullest existing monument of the " Western" text. 
The Greek text which this Version represents must have been closely akin to 
that of D bezae ; and its readings, like the Bezan readings, are, generally 
speaking, avoided in the Gospels, but accepted in the Acts, by our D. And 
inasmuch as the text of Acts in D bez is seriously mutilated, while % is fortunately 

1 In this Introduction, in which considerations of space restrict us to the citation of Greek and Latin. 
evidence, we have been unwillingly obliged to forego all reference to this most important of authorities. It 
is the Version made in Alexandria by the Syrian Thomas, Bishop of Harkel, directly from the Greek MSS., in. 
the year 614. Most of its important and "Western" variants are in its margin, or if in the text, marked 
with an asterisk (*).— In the Peshitta Syriac (S) also, "Western" readings not rarely occur. 


complete in all its Books, the evidence of the latter is doubly welcome where 
that of the former is lacking. 

Of the twelve examples of " Western" readings of our ms noted by W-W in their Praefatio (as 
above), three (xxiii. 24, xxiv. 18, xxviii. 29) belong to the later chapters of the Book, which are missing 
from D bez ; but of the previous nine, it confirms the evidence of our D in eight cases (the one 
exception being the reply put into the Tribune's mouth, xxii. 28). In six of these, S (either in text or 
margin) associates itself with D bez (and with it omits the excepted example). In two of the remaining 
three, where D bez hiat, S reads with our D; leaving it unsupported only in xxiv. 18. A more 
extended examination of our D-text shows that in the above examples the general state of the 
case is fairly represented; — {a) that the two main "Western'' authorities (D bez and 2) agree in the 
majority of the very numerous " Western " readings which they attest, but sometimes stand apart ; 
and (V) that with each of them our D agrees in a considerable proportion (about one-third) of the 
places examined (mostly, but not always, in the same places of both)'. 

Among the other " Western " authorities we find the Old-Lat. Gigas usually but not always in 
agreement with our D in the variants above compared, and exhibiting many others besides, but most 
of them trivial ; while some of the most remarkable of those which our text includes in common with 
D bez or 5 or both, are absent from it.' 

Of the other Old-Latin Mss., h (the oldest) survives but in fragments extending in all to less than 
one-fourth of the Acts-text. It offers many points of agreement with our D, none of them, however, 
specially notable. — The still more fragmentary s usually agrees (so far as it goes) with Gigas. 

The Graeco-Lat. Cod. Laudianus (E e laud), though " Western " but partially, is often, but by no 
means invariably, in agreement with D bez in supporting our D ; and sometimes where D bez is 
wanting E laud (usually in such cases with 2) supplies its place. 

Another witness from an obscure and remote quarter, in a very few but notable instances, 
offers its support to our D, — the Versio Bohemica? cited two or three times by Tischendorf, but 
apparently unknown otherwise. This Version exhibits at xxv. 24 (where D bez is lacking) a large 
addition to the speech of Festus, substantially as found in our D, otherwise attested only by the 
margin of S, — a truly remarkable combination of authorities (see again in Subsect. v). — In another 
place (above noted, xxii. 28, — the Tribune's rejoinder) it is with our D in the insertion " quam 

facile " unknown to 2, D bez, E laud, and all the " Western" witnesses, — though known to Bede 

and found in a Vulg, ms. cited by W-W. Tischendorf cites this Version in yet another place (xi. 17) 
for an addition attested also by D bez, and by 2 (but with *). 

The D-text of Acts exhibits also a considerable number of variants otherwise unattested, or attested 
but weakly. A few of these are markedly " Western," or otherwise worth noticing, — such as that of 
xxiv. 18 above referred to, where D bez is wanting and 2 is silent and our ms. has only the support 
of one or two Vulg. or mixed texts (see in Subsect. 11, in loc, p. clxxxvi). One of its insertions, 
however, in which it stands absolutely alone, appears to be of "Western" character, — the " ascendit 
autem et consedit el reuoluil librum'" of viii. 31. — In the same chapter our D offers an addition — the 
intervention of the Angel — which has here, besides the support of 2* (D bez hiat) not only that of 
some late Latin copies, but an unexpected confirmation, from the Greek of A (Cod. Alexandrinus) in 
which the insertion is deliberately made, by the first hand, in agreement with our text. 

In surveying the "Western" variants of the D-text of Acts collectively, we 
are struck not only by the irregularity (already noticed) of their distribution here, 
as in the D-text of the Gospels, but also by the increase of their tendency to 

' About 120 passages have been compared here ; of which some twenty belong to the missing parts of 
D bez. The agreements of our MS. with 2 (text or marg.) are about forty; with D bez, about thirty. 

2 But the most notable reading in our D, — the conflate one in xxviii. 11 (see in Subsect. v su;pr) — is 
derived from the text of Gigas (misunderstood). 

- Berger justly speaks of Bohemia as " cette patrie d'61ection des textes mel^s et impurs" (p. 5); 
"rendezvous des textes curieux et inusit6s" (p. 80). His remarks on this subject (p. 74) are worth reading. 
JSfote that Gigas is a Bohemian MS, as also the fragmentary w (Cod. Wernigerodensis). 


add and amplify, — and moreover, not seldom by the inartificial and apparently 
careless manner in which they are introduced. Hence (see Subsect. v) the many 
"doublets" which disfigure it so conspicuously. — These are of both kinds; 
{a) conflations properly so called, in which two or more rival readings of the 
original Greek are more or less intelligibly combined ; {b) dittographs, which 
include two distinct renderings of one and the same Greek, so that it is 
represented twice over. 

(5) Of the supposed instances of corrections in our text of Acts, made directly 
from the Greek, there is little to be added to what has been said above (p. clxxv) 
as regards our Gospel text. The instances adduced from Acts by W-W ("/. <;.) 
are not many, nor convincing ; yet suffice to make a more probable case here 
than in the Gospels. All of these examples have been carefully noted in our 
Summaries, together with some others which appear worthy of consideration, — 
all such being distinguished by the mark %. But it is obvious to remark that 
apparent examples such as these, where D has readings attested only by Greek 
authority without Latin support, may be accounted for as due not to recourse on 
the part of the editor of D to the Greek original, but to the scantiness of the 
Old-Latin evidence now available to us. The fewer the Old-Latin documents 
(and in this case but one Old-Latin version is extant complete) the more 
numerous will necessarily be the " Western " readings for which the only known 
evidence is Greek. 

(6) On the whole, and apart from the special aberrations above noted, the 
general result of the combination here presented of Old-Lat. with the Vulgate, is 
a strangely composite text ; conjoining two elements, dissimilar inter se, but each 
valuable in its way, — in such wise as to make their incongruity all the more 
conspicuous — a text singular in its character as compared with that of the other 
Books of the N. T. as exhibited in our ms. Of this text one may conjecture the 
genesis to have been somewhat as follows : — (i) A ms. of the Vulgate Acts in a 
substantially pure form ; (2) enriched by a careful hand by the insertion on its 
margin of a large collection of Old-Latin additions or enlargements of the text as 
presented by the Vulgate ; (3) transcribed by a copyist who endeavoured with 
imperfect skill to work these marginalia, or as many of them as he thought fit, 
into the body of his transcript. A copy produced by such a process, acquired 
by our scribe or the director of his work and carefully reproduced by him, 
would present just such a text of the Book as we find in our D.^ 

1 For an example of this process in its stages, see the note in Subsection v (p. ccvii), which records the 
formation of the D-reading of xxviii. ii. 


Section VIII. — The Pauline Epistles. 

Subsection i. — Preliminary. 

In treating of the text of the writings of St. Paul, it becomes necessary to 
depart from the scheme and arrangement of the preceding Sections (II-V, VII), 
which deal with the Gospels and Acts, and to reduce the scale of our examination 
of the text. Of this change of method the chief reason is, of course, the 
absence of that guidance of which we have had the advantage throughout 
those Sections — and on which all who study the Latin Vulgate New Testament 
must rely in all inquiry into the text of the Gospels and the Acts — that of the 
invaluable edition of the late Bishop Wordsworth and Mr. White. Until that 
great work shall have been completed, it will not be possible to attain definite 
results as to the Vulgate text of the remaining Books of the New Testament, 
from an investigation, such as this Introduction attempts, of the evidence of 
a single ms. or group of mss. — Farther, the material to be dealt with is, in 
these latter Books, comparatively scanty, and the range of possible inquiry 
into and collation of authorities is consequently narrowed. In our survey of the 
text of the Epistles, not only is there lacking to us (as in the case of the Acts) 
any other ms. of Celtic Family to compare with ours, but, moreover, no complete 
text that can be absolutely accepted as Old-Latin is forthcoming. The pre- 
Hieronymian versions of the Pauline writings are represented by the unhappily 
scanty fragments of one ms. (r), and by the Latin [d, g) attached to two Greek 
codices (D, G) both of which (as in the case of D .a? of the Acts and A8 of the 
Gospels) have obviously been re-handled more or less freely into conformity with 
their accompanying Greek. ^ 

In this Section accordingly we confine our examination of the Vulgate of 
Jerome, generally speaking, to a collation of the text of our D with those of the 
Amiatine and Fuldensian Codices (A and F), frequently noting also the readings 
of Cod. Toletanus (T), and of the mixed-Vulgate Cod. Demidovianus {dd), 
which in this Section we find it convenient to treat of among Vulgate mss.^ — 
and now and then of the Harleian (also mixed-Vulgate). But we offer also the 
results of a careful study of its relations with the above-mentioned texts {d and g), 
which are in some measure Old-Latin, and certainly non-Hieronymian — the 
Latin of the Graeco-Latin Codd., Claromontanus [d with gr D), and Boernerianus 
(^ with gr G); — and also with that of Cod. r (Frisingensis, now Monacensis), 
which exhibits, in a series of precious but all too few and short fragments, a 
genuinely Old-Latin version. Along with these we have adduced the textual 
evidence yielded by citations from St. Paul in the works of early Latin Fathers, 
or translators from the Greek. Each of the following Subsections exhibits a 

1 We omit reference to the texts gr E (e), gr F (_/), which cannot be accepted as independent of 
gr D {d) and gr G {g). ' For the most part we cite dd only where it deviates firom cl, 

2 D 


collection of typical examples (not presented as a complete summary) of the 

variations of D from A, arranged according as D is more or less supported by 

these Old-Latin authorities. To each example we subjoin the reading of the 

Clementine Vulgate, and that of the Greek. 

The letters ADFT, and dd, denote the same vg mss as in Sectt. ii-v and vii. The Harleian 
(Br. Mus., Harl. 1772, hrl) is cited from Tischendorf. It is of Cent. ix. 

Of the Old-Lat. mss— 

d is the Lat. of the Graeco-Lat. D (of Paul), Cod. Claromont. (Cent, vi) ; Paris, Biblioth. Nat., 
107 ; edited by Tischendorf, Leipzig, 1852. It is complete with few exceptions. 

g, the Lat. of the Graeco-Lat. G (of Paul), Cod. Boernerian. (Cent, ix) ; Dresden, A. 145 ; 
edited by C. F. Matthaei, Meissen, 1791. Complete, with few deficiencies, but does not contain 
Epistle to Hebrews. 

For dd (Demidov.), see p. clxxix mpr ; and for m (the Speculum), pp. cxlv, clxxix. 

r {Frising.), ed. Ziegler, lialafragmente (Marburg, 1876)', assigned to Cent, vi, contains (with 
many small breaks) — 

Rom. xiv. 10 — XV. 13. 2 Cor. vii. 10 — viii. 12. Phil. i. 1-20. 

1 Cor. i. I — iii. 5. „ ix. lo — xi. 21. i Tim. i. 12 — ii. 15- 

„ vi. I — vii. 7. „ xii. 14 — xiii. 10. „ v. 18 — vi. 13. 

„ XV. 14-43. Gal. ii. 5 — iv. 3. Hebr. vi. 6 — viii. 

„ xvi. 12 to end. „ vi. 5-17. » ix- 27 — xi. 9. 

2 Cor. i. I — ii. 10. Eph. i. i — ii. 16. (Also, i Joh. iii. 8 to end.) 

„ iii. 17— v. I. „ vi. 24. 

The patristic citations are mostly borrowed from Sabatier's Bihlia S. Latina, and from 
Tischendorf s Nov. Test. Grace. ; but for the Latin text used by Victorinus, we have examined his 
Commentary (on Gal., Eph., and Phil, only), printed in Migne, Patrol. Lat., t. viii. For that of 
the shorter Pauline Epp. embodied in the early Lat. translation of the Commentary of Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, we are indebted to Dr. Swete's edition of 1880. This text we designate 6. 

The following Subsections are arranged according as D is supported — 
(Subsect 11) by d and g against A ; (iii) by d against A and g; (iv) by g against 
A and d; (v) by r against A and dg ; (vi) by patristic evidence only (including 
that of &); or (vii) where unsupported by any known Latin authority.^ 

Subsection ii. — Examples in which D is supported against A, by d and g. 

The versions d and g, which accompany the Greek of mss. D paul and G paul 
differ widely inter se, not only where they represent the differing readings of the 
two Greek texts, but generally in their choice of Latin words or phrases. In 
some cases, however, they are found to agree in siding with our D where it 
diverges from A. Setting aside trivial instances of such agreement, we note the 
following as worth recording : — 

Our MS reads — 

Rom. iii. 9. {quid ergo) teneamus amplius. So {tenemus) d g, Origen (lat), Ambrst. (once) ; gr DG, 
ms 31, Tt ovv irpoKarixoH-^v jrepicrcrov : — AT {quid igitur) praecellimus eos ; so {ergo) F, cl, Ambrst. (again) 
Sedul.; with gr, Trpoix6ix.i6a (XBKP), — wfxida (AL) ; (all without irepto-trov). 

' Supplemented by Wolfflin, Munich, 1893, in Sitzungsberichte der konigl. bayer. Akademie, 11. 
' The rest of this Section (Subsectt. ii-viii) is contributed by the Rev. Robert M. Gwynn, B.D., Fellow 
and Tutor of Trinity College, Dublin, but has been revised by the Editor, who is responsible for its contents. 


Rom. xvi. 3. (at end) + «/ domisticam eorum aedessiam. So d g, with gr DG: — AF, and T (but 
nominat.), cl, &c., om here, but ins at beginning of ver. s ; with all other gr. 

I Cor. XV. 56. aculeus. So T, d g, and Tert., Hil., Aug., &c. : — AF, dd, cl, stimulus. All gr, Kivrpov, 
(Note that in ver. 55, d has stimulus ; dd in same ver., aculeus ; both inconsistently.) 

Gal. iii. 1. {after /ascinam't) — ueritati non oboedire. So {om) d g, also r and F ; and 6, Tert., Vict., 
Hier., Aug. ; with gr DG, and J^AB : — A (and T, credere), cl, ins ; with gr CKLP, &c. 

ib. ib. ib. (after proscripius) + et in uobis. So {om et) d g, F hrl, and cl ; also (with et) dd, Hier., 
Vict., Ambrst., Sedul. ; with gr DGKLP, &c. : — AF'T om ; with gr XABC, and some mss. 

ib. ib. 15. inritum facit. So d {inr. facial) and g {irritat), r, and Aug., Ambrst., Sedul. : — AF, cl, 
and 6, Tert., Hier., spernit. All gr, aBerii. 

Eph. iv. 29. {aedificationem) fidei. So d g, m, and Vict.; also cl ; with gr DG and ms 46, t^s 
TTto-Teios : — AF'T, dd, and Hier., opportunitatis {6, necessitatis) ; with gr Ji^ABD'KLP, &c., tiJs xP^^"-^- 
(F, opportunitatis fidei, hut fidei expct.) 

Phil. iii. 21. transfigurauit. So Vict.: — d g, and 6, Iren., Tert., Hier., Aug., Ambrst., &c., 
transfigurabit (Cypr. and others, transformabit) : — AFT, m, cl, reformauit ; some vg, Sedul., conformabit. 
All gr, /uETao-xiJ/taTt'o-ci. 

Col. iii. 8. turpiloquium. So d g, 6, Ambr., Ambrst. {m, multiloquium): — AF, cl ; Hier., turpem 
sermonem. All gr, ai(r;^joo\oyiav. 

1 Tim. ii. 13. primus formatus est. So d g, m r, also F, cl ; and Cypr., Hier., Aug.: — A, prior 
figuratus est {6 has primus plasmatus est ; Ambrst., primus creatus est). All gr, irpuTos eTrXda-drj. 

Tit. iii. 4. inluxit. So d, and g (adding "uel apparauif"), also Lcf., Hier., Aug., Ambrst.: — 
AF, cl, and 6, also Ambr., apparuit. All gr, hn^avr]. 

It is to be added that, in general, d g together agree with D in rendering o.y6.iTf], Xo'yos, /xva-rripiov 
Sofa^o), e-uSoKw, KarotKu, vTri)(ti>, by caritas, uerhum, mysterium, magnifico, beneplaceo, hahito, suffero ; where 
A has dilectio, sermo, sacramentum, clarifico (or glorifico), placeo, inhabito, supporio. 

Subsection iii. — Examples of D with d, against A and g. 

Where d and g differ, as they commonly do, our D is seldom on the same 
side as d. But the following instances where the combination D of is opposed 
to the combination A g are to be noted : — 

D reads — 

Rom. ix. 15. miserebor cui misertus ero. So d, with Ambr., Aug.: — A, cl, miserebor cuius misereor, and 
so (with cui) F, ^(but subjoins, " uel misertus sum"); T, misereor cui miserebor. All gr, IXi-qa-w ov av IKeSi. 

ib. xiv. 9. uixit . . . . et {mortuus est et resurrexit). So d ; and Iren., Aug. ; with gr D (c^iycrev koX 
&7ri0avtv koI avicrrt]) : — AF, cl, g, om uixit et ; with gr G. Of other gr, J^ABC read airidav^v koX e^tjo-ev ; 
LP and most mss, a.7ri9av(V koX dveo-Trj Koi [df]e'^^crci/. 

Gal. iii. i. proscripius {est). So d, and r; also F and Q, Vict., Aug., Ambrst., Sedul. : — AT, cl, jg-, 
and Hier., praescriptus. All gr, wpoeypac^ij. 

ib. iv. 7. (at end) dei per xp7n. So d, also 6 ; with gr J^'C'DKLP and many mss (6eov Stec 
XpioToS) : — AF, cl, and Ambr., Vict., Aug., Ambrst., perdeum ; with gr J^ABC (Sia diov, — but G, 8ia 6v). 

ib. vi. 9. (at end) non fatigati. So d, and 6 (similarly Tert.), also Aug., Ambrstr., infatigabiles : — 
AF, cl, g and m, and Vict., non deficientes. All gr, /a^ £K\ud|u,€vot. 

2 Tim. iii. 11. liberauit me {dns). So d, and 6, Ambrst., Sedul.: — AF, cl, g, me eripuit. All gr, 
/Lie ippvararo. 

Other combinations of D with d against A, while g sides with neither, are — 

Rom. iii. 25. propter propositum. So d, and Aug., Ambrst. (as if after gr Trpodea-iv, which is not 

in gr D, nor found elsewhere) : — AF, cl, propter remissionem ; gr, 8ia t^v Trdpicnv : — g, with gr G and 

a few mss, om. 

2 D 2 


Rom. XV. 3T. remuneratio mea . . . accepta{ht)lis. So d: — A, cl, and Sedul., ohsequit met ablatio accepta: 
g, administraiio mea .... acceptaUlis (F d' , ministerium meum .... acceptabile ; Ambrst., munerum meorum 
ministraiio accepta^. Thus d' g, and F, follow the gr of ^ACD'LP (17 SiaKovia /xov cuwpocrSeKTos), while 
A d with our D variously represent 77 S(opocj)opia fx. evTrpocrS., of gr BDG (against g). 

Gal. V. 15. {mordeiis ei) incus{s)atis. So d {inaccusatis), Cypr. (to like effect Vict., accusatis; and 
Ambrst., criminatis) : — AF, cl, and Hi!., Aug., comedilts ; g, deuoralis; 6, consumitis. All gr, Karea-OUre. 

I Tim. V. 16. si quis fidelis aut si qua fidelis. So d {uel), also FT, and Ambrst. ; with gr DKL 
(et Tis ■n-ia-ro'i rj Tn.a-rrj) : — A hr], si qua fidelis, with gr J^ACGP (et rts TTLo-rrj) : — cl, and 0, Ambr., 
Aug., &c., si quis fidelis {g, fideles — so too dd}j. No extant gr cod. seems to have Tna-Tos (without 
ri TTtcTTJj), though Chrysost. so cites the sentence. 

Tit. iii. 7. heredts efficiamur. So d, 6, and Lcf., Aug., Hil., Ambrst. : — AF, cl, simus ; g, essemus. 
Gr i^ACDGP, few mss, yevrjd&fiev ; K'D'KL, most mss, yivia/xeOa. 

Subsection iv. — Examples of D with g, against A and d. 

The combination D^ is much more frequent than T)d; but its occurrence 
is far from being uniform or consistent ; and the habit of g of offering two 
alternative renderings confuses the results obtained in comparing its text with 
that of D. 

The following are fairly representative instances of the combination T) g 
against A d, taken from two of the most important Epistles : — 

D reads — 

1 Cor. XV. 55. aculeus. So g, and dd ; also Iren., Tert., Cypr., Aug., Hil. : — d and AF, cl, stimulus. 
Hier. varies, also Ambrst. (See in Subsect. 11 supr, for xv. 56.) 

2 Cor. iv. 16. exterior homo noster. So g and r, also Tert., Aug., Hier., Ambrst. : — AFT, cl, is qui 
/oris est noster homo, and so d {pm is), and Ambr. All gr, 6 efo) ijjuGv av^pcoTros. 

ib. v. I . habitaculum [ex deo). So g : — AF, cl, and d and r, also Hier., Aug., Ambrst., aedifica- 
tionem. All gr, oIkoSo/j.i^v. Note that all vg, and dg and m (not r), follow gr DG in prefixing the 
superfluous quod {otl) to oikoSo/atJi/ (against all gr else) ; and so Ambrst. {quia), but not Hier., Aug. 

ib. viii. 3. pro uiribus . . . . et ultra uires. So g, also r, and Ambrst. {supra) : — AF, cl, and d, 
secundum uirtutem . . . et supra uirtutem ; r, with Aug., and similarly Ambrst., sec. uires . . . et supra uires. 
All gr, Kara. 8ui/a/itv . . . kox irapo. 8vva/j,i.v. Cp. i. 8, in Subsect. V infr. 

ib. ix. 2. uoluntatem uestram. So g, and F (Ambrst., promptam uol. uestr.) : — A, cl, and d, also 
Aug., promptum animum uestrum. All gr, rrjv irpoOvp-iav vp-dv. 

ib. xi. 32. princeps gentis. So g, Ambrst. : — AF, cl, and d, praeposilus gentis. All gr, o iOvap^rj?. 

Other examples (taken from Epp. in which the evidence of is available) 
are — 

Gal. ii. 2. exposui eis aeuanguelium. So g and 6 {illis), r, Vict., Aug. (once), Ambrst. (gr G, 
ave^aXop-riv) : — AF, cl, land d, with Iren., Tert., Aug. (again), Hier., contuli cum illis (or eis) euang. 
All gr exc. G, a.ve6ep.-r]v. 

1 Thess. V. 3. dolor partus. So T, Q, Ambrst., Sedul., and g {dolores p.) : — AF, cl, om partus, also d 
{dolores). Gr S(A)BD'KLP, &c., 17 <i8tV (D, y, wSivri ; G, ij o>8ii/€s [sic']). 

2 Thess. iii. 14. (at end) ut erubescat. So g, r, and 6 ; also Aug., Sedul. : — AF, cl, d, and m ; 
also Ambrst., ut con/undatur. All gr, iva evrpaTry. 

I Tim. i. 17. inmortali inuissibili incorrupto. Similarly g, incorruptibili inuisibili immortali, and so 
{inmort. inuissib. incorruptibili), r, and (once) Aug. : — AF, cl, and d, also Tert., Novat., Aug. (else- 
where), Ambrst., immortali inuisibili {om incorrupt.). — Again, 6, incorrupto inuisibili {om immortali). Of 
gr, G has atpdaprto aopaTio adavdrio ; D, aOavarta aopdrw ; most of the rest, d^iOdpTia aopdrto. 


1 Tim. vi. 6. pietas dei. So g ; — AF, cl, d r, pietas only, and so 0. All gr, ^ evo-e'/Seio, exc. G 
{yi £vo-ej8«a Oeov). Note that in ver. s, D (not g) has pieiaiem dei. 

2 Tim. i. 3- (jseruio) in proauis meis. Similarly g (but adds, "uel progeniloribus, i.e. patriarchis"), 
and Ambrst., a proauis {a.\so 6; and Sedul., a proauis meis) : — AF, cl, a progeniloribus; also (/(but om 
prep.), and dd (+ meis). Gr, dtTro -irpoyoviav. 

In one or two places where Ttg combine against A, d stands apart ; as — 

2 Cor. V. 8. consentimus {magis). So g, and also Ambr., Ambrst. : — AF, cl, bonam uoluntatem 
habemus (and similarly Lcf., bonam uol, habentes) : d, uoluntatem habentes only. AH gr, ewSoKov/tei/. 

Phil. ii. 3. existimanies maiores. So g {" existim. superiores uel maiores"), m r, Aug., Ambrst. {exist, 
superiores; 0, exist, supereminere) : — AF, cl, superiores arbitrantes ; d, arbitrantes praecellentes ; Vict., 
inuicem uos ab alteris praecedi arbitrantes. All gr, ijyov/iei'ot v-Kipi)(avro.% (D, vTrepexovTcs). 

Subsection v. — D with r, against Ad g. 

In many instances, D diverges from A, d, and g, where its readings are 
attested by r, with or without other Latin evidence. 

i. Instances where r and 6 join in supporting D against A cl g, are rare (and 
in general 6 has little in common with r) ; but we find one such — 

Eph. ii. 12. peregn'ni. So r, 6, and Tert., Ambr., Aug. (mostly) : — AF, cl, d g, and Vict., have 
hospites. All gr, leroi. 

ii. Instances where r, without 6 but with other early testimony, supports D 
against A and d g, are not infrequent. Thus (note that for Rom. and i and 2 Cor., 
the evidence of Q is not forthcoming) — 

Rom. xiv. 19. quae ad aedificationem sunt. So r (but om sunt), and Aug. (once) : — AF, cl, d, m, 
and Aug. (again), Ambrst., Sedul., quae aedificaiionis sunt. All gr, to t^s okoSo/ti'^s. 

ib. 21. offenditur. So r and m (also cl), and Aug.: — AFT, dd, d g, Ambrst., offendit. All gr, 


ib. 22. tu fidem quam habes .... habe. So r, also (vg) T, and Aug., Sedul., with gr i^ABC 
(irto-Tiv V Ixe's . . . €xO :— AF, cl, Ambrst., tu fidem habes . . . habe, with {om rfv) gr DGLP, &c. ; but 
d g, habes for habe {g' corrects). 

I Cor. i. 10. in ea[n]dem sententialm]. So r, also dd, cl, and Cypr., Aug., Hil. : — AF, d g, in eadem 
scientia. All gr, kv r% airy ■yi'S/tij- 

z Cor. i. 8. supra uires. So r, with Tert., Ambrst., Sedul.: — AF, cl, d g, Hier., supra {ox super) 
uirtute[m]. All gr, inrep Swafniv. 

ib. iv. 17. {supra modum) — in sublimitate. So r om in subl. (writing in incredibilem modum, and 
similarly Aug.): — ^AF, cl, supra modum in subUmitate'\m\; and so d g, in sublimitate[m~\ (but d has 
secundum excellentiam for supra mod.). Of gr, i^CK om ek iireplSoX-^v (which ABDG, &c., subjoin to 
Ka^' virep/3o\TJv). 

ib. ix. 15. gratias ago. So r, and Bed. : — AF, cl, d g, om ago ; with all gr. 

Gal. ii. 21. inritam faciam {gratiam). So {facio) r, and Aug., Sedul.: — AF, cl, d g, abiicio; 
6, spemo. All gr, a6eTa> t^v x°'P"'- 

Phil. i. I. diaconis. So r: — AF, cl, d g, and 6, diaconibus.^ Gr, SiaKorots. 

I Tim. ii. 5. unus enim est ds et unus {mediator). So {om est) rm, and dd; also Ambr., Hil., Aug. 
(sometimes) Ambrst. : — AF, cl, d g, and 6, Aug. (elsewhere), transpose et to follow unus. All gr, ets 
yap 6s eis koX fie(TiTT]i. 

' Note that in i Tim. iii. 8, D with A, and Ambrst., write diaconos, but diacones (nom.) in ver. 12 ; 
F, diacones in both w. ; g; diacones in 8, diaconi in 12 ; d, diaconos, diaconi (and so cl) ; also Q (yet in 
Commentary 6 has diaconibus,—st& Swete, vol. II, pp. 118, 6 ; 126, 2). 


I Tim. ii. 9. (e« haUtu) ordinato. So r, and m, also Ambrst. : — AF, cl, d {ornafu) g, and 6, Hier., 
ornato. Gr, ef Karao-roX^ Koafim (H'T)G, Koa-ixiCws). 

ih. ib. 10. per bonam conuersatiomm. So r, and F, also Cypr. : — A, cl, d g, m, and 6, Hier., per 
opera bona ; with all gr. 

Subsection vi. — D with early authority other than that 0/ MSS. 

(i) In some notable instances D is supported against h.dg (and r where 
extant) by 6, either alone or with some (often but slight) patristic confirmation. 
Thus we find — 

Gal. ii. 14. non rectam uiam incedunt. So (nearly) Ambrst., non recta uia incedunt; 6, non recte 
incedunt, and similarly Tert., Hier., non recto pede inced. : — AF, cl, non recte ambularent, and so g 
[ambulant') ; </, Vict, and Aug., non recte ingrediuntur. Gr, ovk 6p9oTroSova-iv. 

ib. iii. 14. promissionem. So : — AF, cl, and Hier. (once), pollicitationem ; r, Aug., adnuntiationem ; 
gr (most), T^v iirayyiXiav: — but d g, Tert., Hier. (again), Ambrst., benedicttonem; after gr DG, t^v 

Eph. iii. 20. {secundum uirtutem) quam operatur. So 0, sec. uirtut. quam t'noperatus est : — AF, cl j 
Vict., Hier., Ambrst.; d, quae operatur {others, qua; g, " operatitem uel quae operatur"). Gr, Kara rr^v 
S'vva/juv TYjV h/epyovjiivqv. 

Phil. ii. 30. in incertum tradens {animam). So 6, and to like effect Vict, {exponens in incertum) \ 
Ambrst. {in interitum tradens): — AF, cl, tradens only; d g, paraholatus {de anima). Gr i^ABDG, some 
mss, ■jrapa^oXevcra./xevo'S rrj tj/vx^ ; CKLP and most, Trapa/SovXcuo-a/Aevos. ' 

ib. iv. 8. {quaecumque) casta. So 6, and Aug. (once) : — AF, cl, d g, and Vict., Aug. (again), 
Ambrst., sancta ; gr, oVa dyva. 

ib. ib. ib. quaecumque bonae opiniones [read — «w]. So 6 : — AF, cl, d g, bonaefamae (Vict., Ambrst., 
lauddbilia). Gr, otra €v<j>r]/j,a. 

Col. i. 2. qui sunt Colosenses. So Q : — AF, cl, d g, &c., qui sunt Colossis. Gr, rots kv KoXoo-o-atg. 

ib. iii. 13. sicut et xps {donauit). So Q and Ambrst., Leo M. ; with gr ^'CD'KLP, Ka^u)s icai 6- 
XptcTos ex"P''<''"'''°- — A {om et, as also dd^ F, cl, d g, m, and Aug. (once ; again, sicut et dns in xpo), sicut et 
dns donauit ; with gr ABDG, ko^ws /cat o /cwptos i)(a.pLcraTo (}>}, 6V). 

2 Thess. i. 9. {poenas) luent. So 6, Iren. (once), and (similarly) Tert. : — AF, cl, d, ddbunt ;. 
Iren. (again), pendent; g, soluent (as also Ambrst.), but adding, "uel dabunt." Gr, hU-qv rlu-ovcnv. 

1 Tim. V. 18. houi . . . . trituranti os non alligabis. So Q, and cl {g has bouem triturantem non 
alligabis) : — KPdd, and d, non infrenabis os boui trituranti (Ambrst., bouem triturantem non infrenahis)^ 
All gr, fiovv akouitVia oi (j>LiJ.u>(ret';. 

ib. vi. 5. (at end) + discende [read discede^ ab huiusmodi. So T, m, and Q {discede ab eiusmodi), also 
Ambrst.; and Cypr. (but in ver. 4): — AF, cl, d g, and r, om. Gr D'KLP, and many mss, acfiia-Taa-o 
ooTo Tu>v TotovTwv : DG aud the other gr mss, &c., om. 

2 Tim. ii. 25. {cum modestia) docentem. So 6, and Ambr. (once) ; Hier. to like effect, erudientem : — 
AF, cl, corripientem {d, corripiente), as also Aug., Ambrst. ; Ambr. (again), corrigentem ; g, disciplinantem. 
All gr, Iv rrpaiTTjTi, iraiSevovTa. 

(2) Many more instances occur in which D is supported by early patristic 
citations only, against A dg, where r, and also 6, are likewise with A, or in their 

i. Thus in Romans, where 6 is wanting, and r is extant only from xiv. 10 to 
XV. 13, we find in D — 

Rom. i. 2 1 . obcaecatum, with Sedul. (similarly Aug., excaecatum) : — for obscuratum of AF, cl, d g, 
and Ambrst. (also Aug. mostly ; but once excaecat.). Gr, Io-kotio-^ij. 

'The readings of D$, and of Victorin., as well as that of dg, evidently render the gr 7rapa;8oX«vo-o;u,€cos. 
Probably that of Ambrst. is a scribe's error, interitum for incertum. That of AF and cl is weak, and 
suits neither gr text. 


Rom. ii. 2"]. {legem) perficiens, with Aug., Ambrst, Sedul. ; — for consummans, AF, cl, dg; gr, 

ib. iii. 21. per legem et pro/etas, with Aug., Sedul. (also F) : — for a lege ei prophetts, A, cl, d g, and 
Iren., Ambrst. Gr, wo toS vojuov koX rSiv irpo^-qTSm. 

ib, iv. 20. in promissione, with Aug.: — for in repromissione, AF, cl, d g, Ambrst., Sedul. Gr, eh 
Trjv hrayyikCav. 

ib. ib. 23. {illi) -t- ad iusHtiam, with T, and cl ; and Ambrst., Sedul., also d' : — AF, d g, with nearly 
all gr, om eis Sikoioo-ijvijv (incl. D as well as G), but D' and ms 63 ins, 

ib. V. 15. ob unius dilicium, with Aug., Sedul. : — for unius delicto, AF, cl, d g, and Ambrst. All gr, 
Tu rov evo% irapaimiifiaTi. 

ib. ib. 17. ob unius dilicium, with Aug. ; gr i^BCKLP, &c., as in 15 : — for unius delicto, FT, cl, also 
{pre/ in) A hrl dd ; gr, Iv kvo's irapairTiafiaTi ; also d (against gr D) : — g, in uno delicto ; gr DG, kv \jS\ 
kv\ TrapanTiofuiTi,. 

ib. vi. 4. resurrexit, with dd, and Iren., Tert. (once), Ambrst. : — for surrexit, AFT, d g, and Tert. 
(again), Ambr., Aug. Gr, ^yep^i;.] 

ib. ib. 23. stipendium . . . . {est), with Ambr., Aug., Sedul., &c. : — for stipendia, AF, cl, d g, and 
Tert. Gr, ra otj/u>via. 

ib. v'n. 18. uoluntas benefaciendi, with Sedul. (once): — for uelle, A (F hiat), cl, d g, Aug., Hier., 
Sedul. (again). — Gr, to OiXeLv. 

ib. viii. 13. per spiritum, with Ambr., Sedul.: — for spiritu, AF, cl, d {sps, but corr.)^, and Iren., 
Tert., Cypr., Aug., Ambrst. — Gr, irvtvp.aTi. 

ib. ib. 1 8. superuenturam {gloriam), with Cypr., Ambr., Lcf. (once), Hier. (once; and again, 
uenturam): — for ad futuram, AF, cl, d g, and Tert., Lcf. (again), Aug., Ambrst., Sedul. — Gr, t^v 
jU.e\Xovo-av Sdfav. 

ib. ib. 28. {omnia) concurrunt, with Ambr. : — for cooperantur, AF, cl ; d, procedunt {g, " cooper, uel 
proced.," and so Aug. varies), also Lcf., Ambrst. — Gr, iravra crwtpyet. 

ib. ix. 18. obdurat, with Ambr., Aug., Sedul. : — for indurat, AF, cl, d g, and Ambrst. Gr, otkXi/pwei. 

ib. ib. 22. manifeslare, with Ambrst. : — for notam facer e, AF, cl, and d {g, noscere). Gr, yvmpta-ai.. 

ib. X. 21. extendi . . . {manus), with Aug. (once): — for expandi, AF, cl, d g; also Tichon., Hil., 
Aug. (again), Ambrst., Sedul. — Gr, i^eTrtTaa-a. 

ib. xi. 31. uestrae miserationi, and similarly Ambrst., in uestra miseratione : — for in uestram miseri- 
cordiam, AF, cl ; Ambrst., and d, in uestra misericordia (but d', accus. ; and so Aug. varies between 
accus. and ablat.) ; g, uestrae misericordiae. All gr (incl. D), T(p vfierepa iXhi. 

ib. xii. 6. {donationes) diuersas, with Ambrst., Sedul. (Aug., dona diuersa) : — for differentes, AF, d", 
cl ; d' g, differentiae. — Gr, ■j(a.p(.<T\).ara.}Qpa (D 8iacj>opav, but corr.) ; d, diffidentiae, 

ib. ib. 10. {caritatem) fratemam,^\\h Sedul. (ablat.) : — for caritatem fraternitatls, AF ; also {caritate) 
cl, d g, m, and Aug. ; similarly (with amore) Tert., Ambrst. — Gr, 177 ^tXaSeAi^ta. 

ib. ib. ib. honore motuo . . . . , with Aug., Ambrst., Sedul. : — for honore inuicem, AF, cl, d g, m; and 
Tert., Aug. — Gr, t^j np.^ dW'^Xovs .... 

ib. ib. 1 1, inpigri, with Sedul. : — for non pigri, AF, cl, d g, and Aug. — Gr, p.ri oKvrjpoi. 

ib. ib, 13. necessitatibus {sanctorum), with Aug. (once), Sedul. (altern.), also FT hrl, and cl : — for 
memoriis. A, d g, and Hil., Ambrst., &c. Gr, DG, rats /xveiats ; the rest, rats xp«""s- 

ib. ib. 15. gaudete . . .flete, with Sedul. •.—lox gaudere . . . pre, AF, cl, and d g, also Ambr., Ambrst. 
All gr, yaipeai . . . KkaUiv. 

ib, ib. 20. {carbones) congregabis, with Hier.: — for congeres. A, F ( — ris), cl, and d g, also Aug., 
Ambrst., Sedul. ; m, coaceruas. Gr, o-copeuo-tis. 

ib. xvi. 10. probatum, with Ambrstr. : — (or probum, AF, cl, d g, and Sedul. — Gr, Sokijicov. 

ib, ib. n. ex domu narcissi, with {domo) Sedul., and cl : — for ex narcissi {om domo), A (FT, ex nar- 
cessis), d, g {ex narciss [sic]). — Gr, ek t5v rap/ctWou. Moreover, D adds prespiteri, and so Ambrst. 
{in loc.) notes, "Narcissus hie . . . . presbyter dicitur fuisse, sicut legitur in aliis codd." 


(3) The following are examples of D readings attested by patristic citations 
against Kd g{r), and Q, taken from Epp. for which B is available. — D has 

Gal. i. 18. {post) triennium, with Hier. (once), Sedul. : — lot annos tres, AF, cl, d g, and 6, Aug., &c. 
Gr, /u.«Ta Tpia (.Tfj. 

lb. iv. 4. natum ex muliere. So FT hrl' dd, and m ; also Cypr. {nat. de m.), Leo M. ; with gr K 
and few mss, yevvw/ici/ov : — for factum ex m., A hrl, cl, d g, and 0, Iren., Tert., Ambr., Hil., Aug., 
Hier., Ambrst., &c.; Vict., editum exm,; gr, yevofievov. 

Eph. iv, 14. machinationem {erroris), with Aug.: — for circumuentionem, AF, cl, Hier.; or remedtum, 
d g, 6, Lcf., Vict., Ambrst. — Gr, rr}v fjieOoSeiav (or plur.) t^s TrXdvrjq. 

Phil. ii. 4. {non quae sua sunt) .... cogitantes, with Ambr. : — for considerantes, AF, cl, d; T, quaerentes 
{g has laborantes, after gr G, kojtowtcs, but adds, " uel quaerentes"); m, non sua singuli respicientes ; 
6, ut non solum sua unusquisque consideret; Vict., non sua propria tantum unusquisque uestrum perspiciat ; 
others variously. Gr, a-KOTtovvTK. 

ih. iii. 16. in eo ambukmus, with Aug., Ambrst. (Vict., in eodem ; Sedul., in eadem) : — again, d, ad hoc 
ipsum conuenire ; g, huic ipsi conu. All these follow gr NABD, tu avria <ttoix(iv, also G (crva-TOLXiv). — 
But AF, cl, in eadem permaneamus regula ; and dd {permaneatis) ; and similarly 6, eadem constare regula ; 
with gr KLP (and D'), tu! airtu uroiyfiv Kavovi. 

Col. iii. 5. idulatria, with {idololatr.) Iren., Ambr. : — for simulachrorum seruitus, AF, cl ; idolorum 
seruitus, d g, and Cypr., Aug., Tichon., Ambrst., Sedul.; B, idolorum custodiam. — Gr, ii^wKoXarpeia. 

ib. ib. 8. animositatem, with Ambr. : — for indignationem, AF, cl, d {g, "furorem uel indignationem"), 
m, and &, Hier., also Ambrst. {indign. animi). Gr, $vf^6v. 

ib. ib. 10. induite, with m, also Ambr., Aug., Ambrst., Sedul.: — for induentes, AF, cl, d g, 6, and 
Iren., Hil., Hier. Gr, ivSv(Td.fji,evoi. 

ib. ib. 14. {caritatem) habete, with Ambrst., also cl (F, habentes) ; dd subst sectamini; — A, d g, 0, 
Aug., om verb (but in Comm., 6 supplies habete) ; and so gr. 

ib. iv, 12. certans, with Aug. : — for sollicitus, AF, cl, d g, and 0, Ambrst. Gr, aywi/tfo/xevos. 

1 Tim. i. 3. ne peruersa doctrina uterentur, with Zeno Veron. ; for ne aliter docerent, AF, cl, and 
Hil., Aug., Ambrst. ; so d g and m {ne aliter doceant), and & {non aliter docere). Gr, /t^ erepoStSocrKaA.cti'. 

2 Tim. ii. 4. obligat {se). So Cypr., Ambrst.: — for implicat, AF, cl, d g; and 6, Aug., Hier. Gr, 

Tit. ii. 2. graues. So too Ambrst. : — iox pudici { — cos), AF, cl, d, and 6 {g, uenerabiles ; m, castas). 

Gr, O-CyUVOl. 

ih. ib, 14. emundaret. So Ambrst.: — for mundaret, AF, cl, d, Aug., Hier.; but mundet, d, and 9, 
Lcf. Gr, Ka.6apia-rj. 

Subsection vii. — Singular readings of D. 

(i) In some few places D stands alone among mss in readings which, though 
not otherwise attested, seem to be due — not to the scribe, whether translating 
independently, or merely blundering, but rather — to some Old-Latin authority 
now unknown. Such instances are worth recording ; as, for example — 

Rom. i. 27. {turpitudinem) exercentes : — for operantes, of AF, cl, and d g, also Hier., Aug., Ambrst., 
Sedul. Gr, Kare/Dya^d/tevoi. 

il. iv. 8. (at end) D sol + tanquam stellae caeli et .... {as in Gen. xxii. 17, and Hebr. xi. 12). So 
too g (for the first four words only). 

ib. xii. 9. execrantes {malum): — for odientes, AF, cl, and d g; or odio habentes, Tert., Aug. Gr, 

I Cor. vii. 35. ut sit frequens oratio uestra ad dnm sine ulla occupatione : — for et {quod) facultatem 
praebeat sine impedimenta dnm obseruandi, A (A' cl, obsecrandi) T {om et) ; d, et praesente dma non recedentes ; 
g, et bene stabile dno inadducibiliter ; Hier., et intente facit seruire dno absque ulla distractione : — Ambr. and 
Ambrst., with F, om; and Hier. notes "in Latinis codd. ob translationis diflficultatem, penitus non 
inuenitur." Gr, kol einrdpeSpov [K, &c., evirpoa-eSpov^ tw KvpCw aTrepia-irda-ru)^. 


1 Cor. xi. 4. supra caput habens uelamen :— for uelato capite, AF, cl, and d, also Aug., Ambrst., 
Sedul. ; g, uelaium caput Aabens. Gr, Kara kc^oX'^s I^wv. 

2 Cor. vii. II. {exhibuistis uos) sincms -.—ior incontaminatos , AF, cl ; d r, castas (as also Ambrst.), 
g gives "incontam. uel cas.^^ Gr, dyvou'?. 

Eph. ii. 5. (at end) + per fidem : — no lat else ; nor gr. 

ib. vi. J 8. {uigilantes in omni) tolUraniia d \—iox instantia et, A (F, stantia et), cl, and Hier. 
{d g om, also Vict.) ; 6, assiduitaie d ; Ambrst., perseueranlia d. Gr, irpoa-KapTeprjo-ei, km (but DG om). 

Phil. i. 27. certamen ineuntes cumfide^ :— for collaborantes fidd, A {¥,fide), cl, Aug. ; d g, concertantes 
fide, $, concertantes in fide, Vict., concert, cum fide ; and Ambrst., pariter cum fide .... certaHtes. Gr, 
(Tvva6\ovvTi% rg Trtcrrei. 

Note that the following words, — pressura, repromissio, resurgo, are habitually preferred by D to 
tribulatio, promissio, surge, as renderings of the gr, 6\i>pii, IvrayyeX^a, 

(ii) Dittograph readings are not rare ; the following are examples, — 

2 Cor. ix, 12. [ministerium) administrationis officii huius. — Here officii of A, F, d (r om), Cypr., 
Ambrst., Sedul., is joined with administrationis of g (altern. for officii). Gr, ij SiaKocta tiJs kuTovpyiai 
TavTTj's. Thus where ^ offers two equivalents for Aeir. as alternatives, D combines them in its text. 

Eph. ii. 22. simul coaedificamini. — AF, cl, d, d, Aug., Ambrst., coaedific. only: g (as in the 
foregoing example), "con uel simul aedific." Gr, o-vi/otKoSojuetCT-^e. 

Col. iii. 14. (uinculum) uniialis et perfectionis. — AF, cl, 6, Pm^., perfectionis ; most gr, t^s TcXetortjTos : 
d g, kmhxsi., unitatis; gr DG, ci/otijtos. In this instance, two readings of the gr, not (as in the 
others) two reiiderings of one reading, are conjoined. 

1 Tim. i. 9. et contaminatis et profanis. — AF, cl, B, Aug., contaminatis : d g, Lcf., Ambrst., profanis. 
Gr, |8e/3^Xots, for which word our text conjoins these two renderings. 

2 Tim, iii. 3. pactum non custodientes {sine adfectione) sine pace. — AF, cl, Hier. (once), sine pace ; d,^ 
Lcf., Ambrst., sine fide ; Cypr., sine foedere : Hier. (again), pactum non cust. (similarly Optat., pacem n. 

■ oust.); g, " perfidi ue\ pactum non custodientes.'" Gr, (ao-Topyoi) acrn-oi/Soi.' Thus D renders aa-ir. doubly. 

(iii) Mere blunders now and then occur ; such as — 

Rom. xi. 25. ministerium, for misterium {fuKTrripiov) : — i Cor. x. 23 {omnia) liquent {bis), for licent 
{wavTa iieo-Tiv): — I Tiin. iii. 13, gaudium bonum, for gradum {^a.Qy.6v): — ib. v. 25, qualiter {se habent), 

for quae aliter {to. oXXtos l^'"''''") • — 2 Tim. iii. 12 {pie ) bibere, for uiuere {^fjv evo-e/Jols) : — ib. iv. 1 1, 

. adsume adhuc {tecum), for adsume et adduc {avaXa^iiv aye jjhto. <reavTOv). 

Subsection viii. — Texi of Epistle to Hebrews. 

Of the text of Hebrews it is necessary to treat separately, because the range 
of .comparison with other texts is narrowed, inasmuch as this Epistle is wanting, 
not only from the text of the Latin Theodore (as are Romans and i and 2 
Corinthians), but from the Commentary of the Ambrosiaster, and from Cod. G^ 
(Boerner.). Thus d and r are alone available in our inquiry. Moreover the 
instances where d, r, or any known Old-Latin authority, supports D against A, 
.are here fewer and mostly less important than in the other Epistles. And 
instances where D diverges both from the Old Latin and from the Vulgate 
as represented either by the Amiatine or by the " authentic " printed text, are 
not infrequent. 

1 The second word is doubtful, its first four letters being indistinct in the MS ; the third, word [cum) is 
-conjectural. ' So apparently d ; see Swete's edn. in loc. 

3 The MS (D) writes ao-TrovSot ao-Topyoi, inverting the gr words ; but the lat {d), sine adfectione sine fide. 

2 E 


(i) Examples of a? with D against A are — ■' 

i. 7. ignem urentem. So d, and so in Ps. ciii. 4 (vg), here cited :— (or Jlammam ignis, AF, cl. 

Gr, Trvpos <f)\.6ya. 

ib. g. (o/w) laeiitiae. So </, and F, and so Sediil., also Ps. xliv. 8 (vg) ; for exultationis, A, cl. 
Gr, fXaiov dyaXXia(r£a)s. 

ib. 14. j/zW/Kj ministri. So Ambr., Hier., Aug., and d (transp.) :— for administratorii sp, AF, cl 
Gr, XiiTovpytKo. irvtvixara. 

ii. 14. particeps factus est eorumdem. So d, and Ambr., Hier., Sedul. -.—{or participauit eisdem, AF, 
cl, and Aug. Gr, fierea-xev rlov avTwv. 

ib. 17. ut expiaret {dilicta). So Ambr., also d {peccala) :— for ut repropiliaret, AF, cl (so Aug., 
ad propiliandum), Gr, eis to tXao-Keo-^ai. 

(ii) There are examples also where D differs from a? and both from A. Most 
are trivial, but a few are worth noting, — as 

i. 4. praestantius prae illis {nomen) : — AF, cl, differentius prae illis ; A, procelUntius his ; (others 
excellentius). Gr, hia<^op<i>Ttpov Trap' ovtovs. 

iii. 17. {quos auiem) odiuit: — AF, cl, quibus autem infensus est; d (similarly Lcf.), quibus aulem 
perosus fuit. Gr, rto-ti/ %\ irpoaiif^KTev, 

vii. 19. proximamus ad dm. So Ydd, cl : — A, maximamus; d, accepimus [read accedimus']. Gr, 

In one or two D is countenanced by other vg texts, against A, d, and gr, — as 

iii. 19. (after introire) + in requiem ipsius, as well as in ver. i8, with F, dd, and ed. sixt : — against 
A, cl, and Lcf., also d. (No gr appears to give eis t^v Ka.ra.-Ka.vcnv ovtoC in this verse.) 

In one or two others some gr copy is with D ; thus — 

vi. II. (at end), D om usque in finem : — which AF, cl ins ; also r {usque ad /.) ; d, in sempiterno. All 
gr have axP' (or f'-^XP'-) teXovs, except mss 31 37, which om. 

A few examples in which D is supported by r against A and d may be 
pointed out, as — 

vi. 8. makdiciioni {proxima). [So r, and so Tert., Aug. — for malediclo, AF, cl, and Hier. ; </,. 
deuolationi. Gr, xaTapas eyyvs. 

vii. 27. pro populo. So r: — for pro populi, AF, cl, Ambr., Aug. ; d, populi only ; gr, vxep .... 
rSiv ToO XaoS. 

X. 30. ego retribuam. So r, cl, and Ambr. : — for ego reddam, AF, d. Gr, cyoj dvra'n-oSuo-*). 

(iii) A dittograph appears in another place — 

vii. 9. (at beginning) quemadmodum habet se uerbum quia uiuit et ut ita dictum sit . . . Here, setting 
aside the words quia uiuit (repeated casually from ver, 8), it is plain that (i) quemadmodum habet se- 
uerbum, and (2) ut ita dictum sit, are alternative renderings of the gr, ws otos ^hriiv ; the latter 
(2) being the rendering of AFdd, and cl, while the former (i) is akin to that of d, quemadmodum dicam 
(so Aug., sicut oportet dicere). 


Subsection ix. — Conclusions from the Foregoing Investigations. 

The examples classified in the preceding Subsections sufficiently establish 
the general character of the Pauline text of our ms. as being, like that of the 
Gospels and Acts, twofold: — in its basis Vulgate, but in its details largely 
affected by Old-Latin intermixture. The plan of this Introduction — to use 
A as the standard by which the divergences of D are measured — necessarily fails 
to show how much D has in common with A, and indeed with the Clementine 
or any other normal Vulgate text. But no student who compares any con- 
siderable portion of the Pauline text of D with the same in A or in cl, can fail 
to perceive the extent and closeness- of D's general adherence to the ordinary 
standard. When D differs from A, our examples show that it is often in agree- 
ment with other vg texts, notably with that of F, the main rival of A in primacy 
among Vulg. texts. This is not the place to discuss the question, which of the 
rivals, A or F, gives the purer text ; nor is it easy to decide to whether of them 
D on the whole inclines. 

But the deviations of D from both these leading mss. and from all vg texts 
are many and grave. In the great majority of these it proves on examination 
to have followed some Old-Latin authority. As between the two complete Old- 
Lat texts which are extant, d and g, its affinity is distinctly with g rather 
than d. With d it has little in common (see Subsectt. ii, iii, supr.) ; with g the 
examples of agreement are numerous and often important ; — more so than is 
indicated by the passages recorded in Subsect. iv, which are offered not as 
an exhaustive list, but merely as a selection of typical instances. Apart from 
d and g it often connects itself with the text whence the extracts given in m are 
gathered ; and still more remarkably with that of the fragments of the unhappily 
mutilated r (see Subsect. v). In the absence of support from d, g, m, and r, the 
variants of our text are amply attested as Old-Lat., by the Pauline citations 
which abound in the works of pre-Hieronymian Latin writers, from TertuUian 
and Cyprian downwards, and of some later writers who still used or at least 
referred to the Old-Lat. in the eighth and ninth centuries, — as Bede, and 
Sedulius. Most of these authors cite the text with care and exactness ; — 
notably this is so in the case of the Ambrosian Hilary (" Ambrosiaster"), 
whose Commentary embodies what on the whole is probably the fullest and 
most complete Old-Lat. text of the Pauline Epistles now extant.^ The early 
Latin version of Origen, and still more that of the continuous Commentary of 
Theodore of Mopsuestia {6) on the ten shorter Epistles, yield valuable evidence 
of the Old-Lat. character of our text where it departs from the Vulgate. The 
total sum of such evidence is so great as to warrant us in presuming that such 
of the "singular" readings of our ms. (see Subsect. vii) as present an Old-Lat. 
character, though unattested otherwise, are really Old-Lat. variants for which 
D is the sole extant witness. 

' See Professor Souter's important Study of Ambrosiaster, in Texts and Studies, vol. vii. 4. 

2 E 2 


It is interesting to note that of the authorities above cited as corroborating 

the D-text, one (Sedulius) was an Irish monk, and another (_^, the Lat. text of 

Cod. Boerner.) was the work of an Irish scribe, both of them contemporary with 

the Ferdomnach who wrote our Book of Armagh. 

An interesting example of the divergency between (/and g is to be found in their dealings with 
the verb o-n-cVSo/iat in the (only) two places where it occurs in these Epp. (Philipp. ii. 17, 2 Tim. iv. 6). 
In both places g (consistently but inadequately) renders it imtnolor: d has liberi (coxr., liber or libor) in 
Phil., and in 2 Tim., delibor. For both renderings there is good early authority. Tertullian, who- 
comes first, sets a good example by using libor in both places ; and similarly Q gives libor in Phil, 
(noting in the Commenlarj/the significance of the verb), delibor in 2 Tim. But the Clementine edition, 
and also AF and apparently all Vulg., missing the important parallelism between the passages, use 
immolor in the first and delibor in the second', — with the exception of our ms, which here follows g 
and shares with it the merit of consistency, but likewise the reproach of having chosen the inferior 

Section IX. — Catholic Epistles. 

Subsection i. — The Materials available for comparison with the D-text of these 


In this Section, the Vulgate mss. compared with D are (beside A) F, C^. 
and T,^ and also dd (which last we cite, as in Sect. VIII, among Vulg.), with 
occasional reference to hrl. As in that Section, our main object is to ascertain 
whether and how far the deviations of D from the A text are due to Old-Latin 
influence. Incidentally, we shall note its relations with the above-named Vulgate 

Here, our Old-Latin materials are even scantier than in the Pauline 

Epistles. Of the Catholic Epistles, with one exception, the earlier versions have 

reached us only incompletely and in fragments — not in continuous texts such as 

the Pauline d and g. 

The one complete Old-Latin text of a Catholic Epistle is the very remarkable one, of St. James 
only, contained in the MS known as^(St. Petersburg, Imperial Libr., Q v. I. 39).' We cite its text 
from the latest and best edition, that of Bishop Wordsworth {Studia Bibl., I. pp. 115 et sqq.). 

The other remnants of the Old Latin, few, short, and broken, are as follows: — 

Of the MSS cited on Acts (Sect. VII, p. clxxix), d and h preserve small portions of the Cath. Epp. 

d, only 3 John, 11-15. 

h, I Pet. iv. 17 to end of Ep. ; 2 Pet. i. i— ii. 7 ; i Joh. i. 8 — iii. 20. 
Of those cited on Epp. Paul. (Sect. VIII, p. ccxiv) as well as on Acts. 

s, James (greater part of;— but ii. 10-16; iii. 6-13; v. 10-18, and some shorter portions, 
desunf) ; 1 Pet. i. 12 ; ii. 4-10. 

There is also a ms, q (Munich, Konigl. Clm. 6436),* which gives us i Pet. i. 8-19 ; ii. 20 — iii. 7 ; 
iv. 10 to end of Ep. ; 2 Pet. i. 1-4;— also i Joh. iii. 8 to end of Ep. — Of these fragments, those from 
I and 2 Pet. have been printed by Ziegler in his Bruchstiicke einer vorhieronym. Uebersetzung der 
Petrusbriefe {Sitzungslerichten d. konigl. bayer. Akademie, I., Munich, 1877) : those from i Joh. are to be 
found with his Pauline fragments r {Itala/ragmente, pp. 55, 56, — see above, p. ccxiv). 

In m (see p. cxlv, above) we find Old-Lat. extracts from all these Epp., except 3 Joh. 

» So too the Ambrosiaster, if the editions of his text are to be trusted. 

•' For C and T we use, in this and next Section, the ms collations left by the late Bishop Wordsworth ;.. 
for access to which we are indebted to the kindness of the Rev. H. J. White. 

3 To be distinguished from the^(usually noted as^a) of the Gospels (see above, p. cxlv). 
* To be distinguished from the q of the Gospels (see above, p. cxlv). 


Subsection ii. — The D-text of the Epistle of St. James. 

The Epistle of St. James is (as appears from the above) more amply 
represented than the others, in the Old-Latin texts, — by one {ff) completely, by 
another {s) in great part, and by a third {m) to a considerable extent, — all three 
texts being distinct inter se. It appears therefore to demand separate study ; and 
we proceed accordingly to examine its text as presented by D, apart from the 
other six Epistles. 

(a) In the following examples, D is in agreement with ^ and s, against A — 

i. 4. {patientta) + autem. So ^(reading sufferentia) s, also YCTdd, cl ; all gr, ^ Se vttoju.oi'^ : — A om. 

ib. 1 1, marcescit, Soffs, FCT : — Add, cl, marcescet; and so all gr, napavd-^a-erai. 

ib. 18. (before genuif) — enim. So ff s, and FCTdd, with all gr mss and nearly all else : — AT, cl, 
ins enim. 

ib. 19, 20. iracondia, iracondiam. So {iracun — )ffni s ; gr, opy-q : — AF, &c., cl, ira, iram. 

ii. 8. dileges. So {dili — )ffs; dd, cl ; gr, dyaTrijcreis : — AFCT, diligis. 

iii. 2. potens. So s, with dd hrl, also (+ est) ff, CT ; nearly all gr, Swaros (J^ and a few mss, Swa/^ei/o s 
re) : — AF, cl, m, potest. 

ib. 3. equorum. Soffs, YCTdd; gr, twv "inrmv. — A, cl, m, equis. 

iv. I. in nobis. Soffms, and YCTdd, cl ; gr, iv vjuv :— A, inter uos. 

ib. ib. (nonne) + hinc. So ffs, Aug. ; F. cl ; all gr, ivnvdev : — ACTdd, m, om. 

ib. 3. accipitis. So/'j; Ydd, cl ; gr, \a/A;8aveTe : — ACT, accipietis. 

ib. s. aut {putatis). So ffs, FCT; ^r,ri:—Add, cl, an. 

V. 6. — et (before non resistit). So ff, and (restitit) s, with F; CT {non resistentem) : — A ins et;. 
also {restitit) dd, cl. All gr, ovk uvriTda-a-eTai. {om km). 

ib. 8. adpropinquauit. So C, s, dead, ff {adpropiauit), also cl ; gr, rjjyiKiv : — AFTdd, adpropinquabit. 

ib. 9. ante ianuam. So ffs, and A'YCTdd, cl ; gr, -rrpo twv dvpZv: — A, ad ianuam. 

{b) Other examples where D is in agreement with ff, apart from ((a) against,. 
or (/3) in the absence of) s, are — 

(o) T) ff, against A j. 
i. 2. in temptationes uarias. So T,ff, also dd, cl : — AFC, s, in tempt ationibus uariis; all gr, irnpaa-iJ.oh 


iii. 14. contentionem. So ff; gr, ipiOeCav: — ACT, s, contentiones ; and so cl {+ sint), F dd {^ sunt ;.. 
also Aug.). 

iv. 7. {subditi) — igitur. Soff, and m : — AFCT, s, ins {dd, cl, ergo) ; all gr, ovv. 

ib. 8. sanctificate. So ff: — AF, &c., cl, s, purificate ; gr, dyi'to-aTc. 

ib. 13. {faciemus) — quidem. So _^ and Hier., Cassiod. ; also all gr : — AFCT, cl (and s), ins. 

(/J) D ff against A, where s is wanting. 

ii. 8. {secundum) scripturam. So D (txt),_^; with all gr mss, and mss ((cara t^v ypo.^r\v), exc, 27 29 : — 
AF, &c., D (corr), cl, scripturas. 

ib. 16. dederit. So _^ (similarly m has det): — AF, &c., cl, dederitis, with all gr (Sire). (Here, in s 
only the syllable ded is legible). 

iii. 9. {benedicimus) dominum. So ff (CT, dno) ; gr i^ABCF, ms 13 :— AF, cl, deum only, as also 
Aug. ; and so gr KL and most (D sol adds nostrum). 

ib. 12. oliuas {facere). So.CT, _/", and Bed.; all gr, eXatas : — AF, cl, uuas. 

iv. 10. exaltabit. So_^, m, FCTdd, and cl ; with gr, ifiia-n : — A, exaltauit. 


{c) There are also a few places where ^is partly with D against A, though 
not completely. Thus — 

i. 1 1, where D (with s) has deperit, ^(agreeing as to tense) has peril ; against deperiit of AF, &c., 
•cl ; gr, aTTitfXcTO. 

ii. 2, where D s have in conuentum uestrum (as also CT, cl), /has, in synagogam uestram (accus.) ; 
with gr, ets {rrjv] a-vvayiayrjv ifiwv : — against in conuentu uestro o^ AFdd (ablat.). 


i. 12, where D sol has promisl_sy(,ff has promittet (agreeing as to verb employed) : — against AF, &c., 
cl, and s, repromisit ; gr, iwriyyiikaTo. 

i. 25, where D, s have qui perspexit, ff has qui respexil (agreeing as to mood) : — against AF, &c., 
cl, qui perspexerit. Gr, 6 ■n-apaKvij/a';. 

ii. 6, where D sol has exhomratis, ff h^s fruslraiis (agreeing as to tense): — against AF, &c., cl 
(also Aug.), exhonorasiis (as gr, r/TifidcraTe). [Here s hiat.'\ 

ih. 20, where D, s, with ¥CTdd, have olios{s)a, and to like effect ff, uacua ; with gr BC, dpyij : — 
against A, cl, mortua [though A' corr., otiosd] ; gr i^AC'KLP, &c., veKpa. 

iv. 8, where D with F has (after adpropinquate) dno, and so s {adpropiate dm) \ and likewise ff 
[accedite ad dnm) : — against AT, cl, adpropinquate deo), and so Cdd {appropiate) ; m {proximate') ; with 
all gr, eyytVaTC t<3 6«<3. 

With these may be classed an example of T) ff m agreeing against A j as regards the Greek 
reading represented, though verbally differing inter se. 

iii. 5. modicus {ignis). So gr AC'KL and mss {oXCyov irvp) ; ff, pusillum ; m, paruus : — AF, cl, «fec., 
s, quantus ; gr JtA'BCP, ijXtKoi/, 

{d) Examples in which D is supported by s along with ff against A have 
been given above. There are also a few where D has ^ on its side against A, 
apart from^ 

i. II. deperit; ib. 25, qui . . . .perspexit; ii. 2, in conuentum uestrum; ib. 20, otiossa. — See above, 
under [c). 

ii. 6. trahunt. So s, and Aug., also Ydd, cl (C, trahant; T, traunt [sic]): — A, adtrahunt. Gr, 
cXkouo-ii/ [^(by lapse), tradunt\ 

ih. 18. dicet quis. So F, cl, and [dicit) C, and T (but corr., aliquis) dd, s : — h., ff, dicet aliquis. 
Gr, epet Tis. 

iii. 13. in mansuitudine. So {in mansuet.) s and m ; also FCTdd, cl ; gr, ev irpavTijTi : — A, 
-in mansuctudinem ; ff, in clementia\m']. 

{e) It will be observed that in a few of the above examples, m agrees with 
^but not s (iv. 7 and 10), or i but not^(iii. 13), in siding with D against A. In 
a very few places, D is thus supported by m apart from^and s; as — 

ii. 16. {in pace) + et. So m : — AF, &c., cl, ^, om et {s Mat), with gr. 
iii. 6. (before et lingua'-^'') + ita. So m : — AF, &c., cl,_^, om, with gr. 

ib. ib. + et (before uniuersitas). So m (before mundus) : — AF, &c., cl, om (before uniu.) ; as also 
ff (before saeculi). All gr, 6 Kouiio'i (without xai preceding). 

Of the whole of the examples above cited, there are but two in which ^w s agree in siding with 
D against A ; — viz., i. 19 and 20 {iracundia\ni\ for ira\m'\ ; iv. i {in nobis for inter uos). 

It appears on inspection of the foregoing examples, that our text, where 
it varies from that of A, shows but few and slight traces of the Old-Latin as 
represented either by ff, or by the imperfectly preserved s, or in the extracts 
collected in m, of which three texts the first has little affinity with either of the 
•other two. The agreements of D with any one of the three are, with rare 


exceptions, in trivial points, such as may be due to chance coincidence, — or else, 
such as are common to D with other Vulgate texts. As regards the unique text 
ff^t it is to be noted that of the countless and strongly marked deviations which 
distinguish it from all other early Latin authorities, not one has passed into D. 

(/) Of the many instances where D differs from A without Old-Latin, 
support, only a few are worth recording as having other attestation. Thus we 

(o) D with lat text other thanffm s, against A. 

ii. 1 6. corpori, with YTdd, cl (AC, corporis, with ffms, and gr) : i6. 26, emortuum, with ¥CTdd 
(A, cl, ffm s, Hier., mortuum [but D alone emortua following]): iv. 15. apparens, with Hier. (AF, &c., 
c], parens; also s; ff, uisibilis \m deesf\) : ib. 15. {et) + si {uixerimus), with Ydd, cl, Aug. (A, ff s, and 
gr, om si; CT write aut si): v. 11, + eos {qui) with dd, cl (AFCT, ff, om eos \j hiaf]). 

(/3) D with some gr, against ff m s and most vg. 

ii. 3. super [scahellum), with gr B'P and many mss (eiri to vTtamohov) : — AF, &c., cl, and all vg else, 
sub scabello, with most gr {vwo to viroir.) ; and so ff s [m deesf]. 

iv. 4. inimicitia. So D (txt), with gr LP, &c. (which write ^x^pa.) : — AF, &c., cl, and all vg else- 
(incl. D (mg)), inimica (with gr read as ix^pd) ; and so also^j. 

ib. ib. deo. So gr J^ {sol), tu flew; and of vg else, FCT : — hdd, cl, a.ndi. ff s, dei; with gr ABKLP 
and nearly all mss {rov Oiov). 

V. 8. {patientes) + igitur. So gr J<L, and mss 918 {ovv) ; also cl : — AFCT hrl dd, om igitur, also- 
ff \_s hiaf] ; with gr ABKP and most. 

V. 10. {fratres) + mei. So gr i^KL, &c. (d8eA.i^ot ju.ou) : — all vg else om pronoun, with gr ABP, and 
some, and so^[f leaves a blank]. 

It is to be noted that in but two of the above iive examples, D has support from other vg against 
A; in the remaining three, it stands with some gr authority against all lat; sc, ii. 3, superior sub;. 
iv. 4, inimicitia ioT inimica; v. 10, »z« subjoined io/ratres. 

(7) D alone. 

Of the instances where in deviating from all other lat (Vulg. or Old-Lat) as well as A, our ms is- 
without gr support, hardly any are worth noticing ; most are insignificant ; some evidently inadvertent. — 
One is a distinct though unimportant mistranslation {arescit foenum, gr, iirjpavtv rbv xoprov, — instead of 
arefecit, i. 11). One only is an improvement {humiliaiione for humilitate (gr, Taireivwcrci, not TaTrtivo- 
tj>poa-vvy, i. 10)).' 

(g) In this Epistle, two instances of doublet renderings occur — 

iii. 17. modesta suadibilis bonis conseniiens. So also FCT hrl dd, cl. — Here the gr has only cTritiK^s 
eujTctfl^s. These words are rendered adequately by A, and by s, modesta suadibilis ; ff gives uerecundie 
conseniiens (no doubt to be corrected, uerecunda conseniiens), D and the others as above, to represent 
ewtiflijs, subjoin to the suadibilis of A and s, the conseniiens of ^ (made more definite by prefixing to 
it, bonis.) In this dittograph, F leads the way, and QTZdd hrl, and finally cl, follow. 

v. 10. exitus mali laboris et longuanimitatis et patieniiae. The gr is, tiJs KaKOTra^etas Kai tijs 
\ua,KpoOvp,ia%. It is obvious that longanim. et patient, is a double rendering of t^s p.aKpo9v/j,., — AF hrl, cl,. 
and ff having laboris et patieniiae only ; while CT and dd introduce longanimiiatis, — all three retaining 
patientiae also, as D does {cp. Rev. ii. 19 infr, where v-rrop-ovl] is doubly rendered in D by the same 

' Humiliatio never occurs in vg N.T. ; in vg O.T. but twice, — Mic. vi. 15 (with no gr corresponding),, 
and Sirac. ii. 5, = TdTretViocris. — In gr O.T., TOT€iV<o(ris is frequent, but elsewhere rendered in vg, humiiitas ,, 
or afflictio: in N.T., it occurs in but three places besides the present, — viz., Lc. i. 48, Act. viii. 33 ; 
Phil. iii. 28 ; in all three = humiiitas (vg). It is to be noted that the passage in Lc. is an echo of i Kin. i. 1 1 
(LXX), and the passage in Acts is a citation of Isai. (liii. 8). In Phil., humiliationis would be a better 
rendering than humilitatis. 


words). The clue to this tangle seems to be found in CT, which arrange the words thus, palimtiae 
exitus malt et longanimilatts, — probably meaning to render t^s KaKowaOeiai by paiientiae exitus malt, 
and T. fiaKpoBvixta^ by longanimilaiis ;' which rendering dd has confused by addition and rearrangement 
{laboris et patientiae et longanimitatis et exitus malt), and similarly D (as above). The introduction of 
the irrelevant laboris is probably due to a rendering of KaKoiraOtia as patientia laboris (endurance of 
hardship ; cp. z Tim. ii. 3 (vg), KaKonaB-qirov - labora. — The rendering of ^ is de malts passionibus et de 

On the whole, the deviations of D from the A-text of St. James, though 

frequent, are not very striking. And the A-text itself presents fewer notable 

features here than in the other Epistles (especially, as will appear in the next 

Subsection, in those of St. Peter). 

Thus the only important instance in which D stands alone among lat authorities, vg or vt, is the 
reading (iv. 4) inimicitia in its text, but with inimica of all lat else in marg., as noticed above {/, ^). 

Into one remarkable error it falls, with AF and all vg (except dd, which avoids by omission) — 
iii. 7. ([ayterorum. So AFCT hrl, and cl : — but^, natantium ; m, beluarum maritimarum \_s hiat'] ; 
with gr, kvaXiuyv. No doubt c[_a']eiorum is to be read in vg, and there seems to be evidence that some 
Mss so read. On the other hand, koX oXKmv (or the rare ivaXKiov) has been conjectured as the gr 
followed by vg ; but no authority has been adduced for any such variant. 

Subsection hi. — The D-text of the Remaming Catholic Epistles. 

In the rest of this Section, the Old-Latin evidence being fragmentary and in 
many parts lacking, our examples do not admit of such classification as we have 
adopted in Subsection 11. For illustration of our comparison of the texts of 
D and A, we depend mainly on other Vulg. texts, chiefly (as before) on those of 
FCT and dd, and occasionally hrl. 

{a) The following is a collection of examples' in which D, with other lat, 
differs from A in its text of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude : — 

(1) I Pkter. 

i. 4. in nobis. So YCldd, cl, and j : — A, nobis ; Hier., in uos ; gr, eis vjims {al., ij/xas). 

ib. 6. exultdbitis. So CTdd, cl, j : — AF, exultatis (gr, dyoWiSo-^e). 

ib. 8. {non uidentes) credentes autem {exult.). So FCT hrl, s ; with nearly all gr {iruTrevovm 8c) : — 
A, Aug., creditis, quern cum uideritis: — dd, credatis, credentes autem: — cl, with lat. of Polycarp {c. 1) 
and of Iren. (/. V, vii. 2), creditis credentes autem ; so gr ms 68 (only), Tna-Ttv^rt wto-T€vovT«s Se. 

ib. 10. {futura) + dei {gratia). So CT, q s (after gratia^m']) :— AF, cl, and all else om (with gr). 

ib. II. + qui {in eis) + erat {spiritus). So CT, q s -.—KYdd, cl, om qui and erat; gr, to iv ourots 

ib. 12. nuntiata. So FCTdd, cl, ^[?], s:—A, adnuntiata. 

ib. 15. (at end) estote. So CT, m q, Ambr. :—AFdd, cl, sitis ; gr, yev^dtirt. But in ver. 16, A with 
D, and CT hrl, m q, estote (as LXX, Levit. xi. 44, &c.), where Ydd, cl, read eritis ; gr JtABC, co-ecr^e ; 
KLP, yivta-Oi or yeveo-$e. 

ib. 16. — et (before ego). So F, cl ; all gr (as Levit. ut supr) i—ACTdd, m q, et ego. 

ib. 21. + ita (before ut esset). So CT :— AF, cl, and all else om ; gr, Sxne . . . elvai, [q hiat^. 

ii. 3. gustastis. So F, cl ; gr, kymixaijei :—ACTdd, gustatis. 

ib. 5. domum spiritalem. So C {pref. in) T :— A, domus spiritales;—Ydd, cl, Ambr., Aug., Hil. 
(Hier. varies), domus spirit{u)alis ; gr, ol/cos Trwu/tartKos -.—s alone, spirituale (sc, sacerdotium). 

' Patientia is the more frequent vg rendering of iiaKpoevfi-Ca ; but we have longanimitas instead, in 
many places. Cp. Col. i. 11, where for ets vjrofiovrjv koL fiaKpoOvfiCav, vg has, in :patientia et longanimitate. 


I Pet. ii. 6. non confundetur. So ¥CTdd (cl), s, Hier. : — A, non confundiiur (but A', — detur ; and 
so A, Rom. ix. 33). Gr, ov ju,^ KaTaicr;^w^^. 

ih. 8. {pffendunt) uerbum. So s : — AF, &c. (cl), uerbo (gr, irpotrKoirTovo-tv tw Xoy(j)) ; </</, in uerbo. 
ib. II. abstinete. So Cypr., &c. ; gr ACLP, &c., oB-t'xeo-^e :— AF, &c. (cl), abstinere; with gr XBK, 
■&C., d7r6;^€cr5ai. 

z"iJ. 13. {propter) dnm. So CT, m ; gr, 810 t. Kvpiov : — AF (cl), deum. Note that D sol writes dnm also 
in vv. 12, 17, where all gr have r. 6i6v. 

ib 14. makfactorum. So FCTrfrf(cl) ; gr, KaKoiroiiov: — A, m, malorum. 
ib. 17. (regerti) + autem. So »?: — AF, &c. (cl), om autem. 

ib. 18. {subdiii) + m/o/i?. So CTdd, cl ; four gr mss, ^re : — AF om ; with all gr else (iiroracro-d/Aei'oi 
only) ; m reads obaudite. 

ib. ib, (dominis) + uestris. So CT, w : — AF (cl), om ; gr, rots Seo-rroTais. 

2"i. 19. {gratia) + a/«rf ^eww. So m; gr C, mss 13 29, &c,, x"P's Trapa t. 6(^ : — AF, &c. (cl), om, 
with gr NABKLP and most mss. 

?i. 23. tradehat autem iudicanti se. So Frfi5f(cl): — A, q, Cypr., trad, {q, commendabat) autem se 
■iudicanti ; CT, trad. aut. se iudici iudicanti ; gr, TrapeSiSou Se tu Kpivovn. 

ib. 24. (before pertulit) — 2>w. So CT, ?, and (lat) Polyc. (8) : — AF (cl), ins ; and all gr (airds). 

ib. ib. super {lignum). So FCTdd (cl), y ; gr, iirl to fvA,ov : — A, per. 

ib, 25. uisljytatorem. So ^, and Ambr. : — AFCT (cl), and apparently all vg else, episcopum ; gr, 


iii. 3. capillaturae. So F : — Kdd{c\), — tura; CT, q, capillorum implicatio; and so m, inplicaius ; 
Aug., incrispaiionibus ; gr, l/*7r\oK^s Tpiyuw. 

ib, J. sperantes in deo. So F, cl; T, q, quae in deum sperahant (C, sperauerunt) : — k.dd, sperantes in 
dno (?«, in dnm). All gr, «ts (or iirX){Tov) $e6v [^ ^2<z/, iii. 7 — iv. loj. 

z'i. 8. in finem {autem). So F; cl, in fine: — Add, in fide; CT, in summa autem rei; m, quapropter, 

ib. ib. {unianimes) + estate. So m (but writes consentanei estate unianimes) : — AF, &c. (cl), om verb ; 
also gr (6/td<^pov£s). 

ib. 10. + cupit {uidere). So CT hrl (Cassiod., diligit); and so gr mss 22 60 + ayaTrSiv (as lxx, Ps. 
xxxiii. 13) : — AF (cl), om, with all gr mss and most mss. 

ib. 13. (after quis) — est qui {uabis noc). So CT ; gr, ns 6 KaKOTroiZv ; — AFdd (cl), ins est qui. 

ib, 14. {beati) + eritis. So T ; gr X, ms 25, + eorre : — KCdd (cl), om verb (F om beati and rest of 
verse, by lapse). 

ib. 15. {de ea . . , spe) + et fide. So dd; CT hrl, and m, om ea and read de fide et spe : — AF (cl), om 
tt fide ; with gr (but Orig., Contra Cels., iii. 33, reads Trto-Tccos for eXiriSos). 

ib. 16. {de uabis) + tamquam de malefadoribus. So CT, hrl ; gr ^^ACKLP and nearly all, <S>s Ka«o- 
•Koiw/ : — AF (cl), m, om ; with gr B and ms 69. 

ib. 18. {pro peccatis) + nostris. So dd hrl (cl), and Cypr. ; gr C, few mss, irtpX aixapriZv ^jUcSv: — 
AFCT om nostris, with gr BKP and most (XCL, vvcp 17/i. ; A, inrtp vp.,), 

ib. 19. (after carcere) ■¥ conclusi. So CT, hrl, and Aug.; gr C, mss 8 25, tois ev <f>vXaK^ + kcltu- 
«£KX«io-/ievots : — AFdd (cl), om ; with all gr else. 

ib. ib, spiritu (connect, with ueniens praedicauit). So Bed.' (citing mss, ap. Tisch.), one gr (137) 
Tzvi-upjo-Ti : — AFC (cl), and Aug., spiritibus ; all other gr, irveiJ/iao-tv. Tdd, spiritalibus ; some mss, spiritaliter. 

ib, 20. expectabat dei patientia. So Fdd, and Aug. ; similarly T, exspectaret ; A, expectabat dei 
dementia-, gr, a.Tr€tt^k)( r\ r. 6wo p.aKpodvp,ia; — C, expectaret dei patientiam ; some other vg (and cl), 
txpectabant dei patientiam, and so hrl {sustinerent) ; lat of Orig. {De Principp., II. v. 3), expectarent 
dei patientiam ; gr J^, t^i' .... fiaKpo6vp.iav, 

iv. 2. ualuntate. So T, and Aug. : — AFCdd (cl), ualuntati; gr, deX'^p.ari., 

ib. 7. adpropinquauit. So CFdd, cl ; gr, •^yyiicei' : — AT, — quabit. 

ib. II. {saecula) + saeculorum. So CTdd (cl) ; gr mss and most mss (t. aiiiiviav) : — AF om, with 
some gr mss. 

1 See Sabat. in loc, ; who cites from " cod. corb. 2," spiritu ; as does also Lucas Brug. {Notationes, 
in loc), from a ms examined by him. 

2 F 


I Pet. iv. 12. — amen. So FCT(/«? om : — A, cl, ms ; and all gr. 

tb. 13. m reiielatione. So YCldd (cl), and Tert. {q, plur.); gr, iv r. dTroKaXw^" =— A, z'« reuelationem.. 

ih. 15. {nemo) autem. So CTdd, cl, ^ : — AF, ««zw2 ; gr, /iij rt? yap. 

lb. 17. quis {finis). So rf(/ (cl), Aug., Hier. :— AFCT and ,4, ??« [_q hiat\\ gr, ri rb reXoi. (D 
alone + en'/.) 

16. 18. saluus erit. So >% (CT, Ambr., saluus fit -.—Md {c\), q, and Hier., saluaUtur; F, saluaiur 
(Aug. varies) : gr, <Tu>tfiTa.i. 

ih.ih. apparebit. Similarly CT, and Ambr., parehii; gr, <^o.vCi.ra.<.:—hYdd (cl), /^, and Aug.,. 
parebunt \_q hiaf]. 

V. I. {ohecro) + ^/ t-^tf. Similarly »i (+ ego, but (?« ^/) : — AF, &c. (cl), q, om [A hiaf] ; with all gr. 

ib. i- forma esiote. So /^ :— AFC, form{a)e facH \ Tdd {c\), forma facli ; m, ut forma si/is; q, 
forma \}iiat\ ; gr, tuttoi yivofievoi. 

ib. 9. {fortes) + in {fide). So CT^(/, cl, and h [q hiai] ; Lcf., firmi in :— AF, ovt in ; as also gr. 

ib. ib. ei . . . . fraternitati. So Ydd (cl) ; gr, tjj . . . . d8cX<^dTi7Ti ; and so A {fraternitatis) [.'] : — 
CT, h, in omni fraternitate, and so q {fraternitalem). 

ib. 10. confirmabit. So Fifrf (cl) :— A, confirmauit, [h, q, Man/]. (But A (with dd, cl) follows with 
solidahi/que, also j ; D, solidabit {om que) ; while F writes solidauit ; C, consummabit fundabitque (T,. 
— uit, — uitque). All gr write both verbs in fut. 

ib. 12. {in qua) statis. So Tdd, cl, ;^ \_q Mat] ; gr KLP and most, eo-TijKare: — A, et state, also FC 
(o»z et); gr. ^iAB, mss. 5 7 9 13 &c., o-TijTe. 

zi. 13. {ecclesia) . . . electa. So h (and apparently ^) : — A, conelecta {dd, cl, coelec/d) ; FT (similarly 
C), cumelec/a ; gr, 17 . . . . o-vcexXeKT^. 

j'3. 14. pax {nobis). So CT, q {h); all gr, etpTji'); : — AF (cl) ; gratia. 

ib. ib. {in xpo) — ihu. So Ydd hrl, q; with gr AB and mss 13 36 : — ACT (cl), h, ins ihu ; with gr 
SKLP and most mss. 

(2) 2 Peter. 

i. 2. in cognitione. So F(/(/ (cl) ; gr, iv eTnyvwa-ei : — A, in agnitione ; k, m, in recognitionem ; q, in- 
recognitione, as also. Aug. ; but CT, regeneratione. 

ib. ib. {dni nri) ihu xpi. So m\ with gr ms 69 and a few:— AF(/rf hrl, with gr P and a 
few mss, om ihu xpi: — CT {q\ cl, dei et xpi ihu dni nri; with gr ms 13 and a few; (KAL, &c., 
similarly prefix toB dtov koI, but write Irjcrov x,pi<rTov ; also (but om xP'-<^'''°'J) BCK. 

ib. 3. (after omnia) donaui/, D sol; (after pietatem) dona/a est. (See infr., p. ccxxxiv.) 

ib. 4. per quem. So Ydd hrl (cl), ^ ; gr mss 8 219, St' ov : — A, h m, per quam ; CT, per quae ; gr 
generally Si' S>v. [Here q def finally.] 

ib. ib. (after promissa) donata sunt. So h ; m, donantur ; gr, SESuJpijrat : — AF, &c. (cl), and Aug., 
Hier., donauit. 

ib. 8. {haec) enim. So YQ'Ydd (cl), h {m om) ; all gr, yap : — A, autem. 

ib. 10. + satis agi/e. So h (but prefixes magis) ; similarly (by dittogr.) FTrfc? (cl), and Aug., magis 
sa/agite ; Ambr., satagite only ; gr, ixaXXov o-irovSdcraTe : — AC, magis agite {om satis). 

ib. 14. certus + sum. So dd (and add enim) : — AFCT (cl), h, om ; and so gr (eiSul? only). 

ib. ib. uelocissima. So CT : — K?dd (cl), uelox {h, uelos) ; gr, Taxivq. 

ib. ib. + erit. So CT {dd, si/) : — AF (cl), es/ ; gr, to-TtV. 

ib. ib. (before dns noster) — et. So m : — AF, &c. (cl), ins ; all gr, + Kai. 

ib. ib. (at end) -v per reuelationem. So dd: — AFCT, cl, and h, om, with all gr. 

ib. i6. et praescientiam. So some vg mss, incl. corb 2 (a/. Sabat.) : — YCYdd and most (and cl, sxt,. 
Complut.), et praesentiam (but A om) ; gr, Kat irapovaiav. See Romanae Correct., ap. Luc. Br., and f/.. 
marg. of Antwerp Polyglot. 

ii. 2. sequentur. So FCTdd (cl) ; gr, e^a/coXov^^o-ovo-ti' [or — iu<jiv] : — A, sequuntur. 

ib. 4. cruciatos. So F ; gr J^A, few mss, KoX.a^of/.evovi : — ACTdd hrl (cl), cruciandos ; h, puniendos. 

ib. i-i,. (at end) {luxoriantes) — uobiscum. So (/(^ : — AFCT (cl), ins; so Aug., coepulan/es uobiscum ;. 
gr, o-W£va);(OiJ/ie)/oi ; (ot deviates). 


2 Pet. ii. 14. {oculos plenos) adulteriis. So T :— AF, aduUerio (Cdd, cl, and Aug., adulterii) ; gr i^A, 
-mss 63 68 73, /ioixaXtas; BCKLP, and most, fioixa-XiSos. — For plenos adult., m subst. adulteros. 

ih. ib. incessabiUs diledi. So F {delicti) ; gr i^CKLP and most, iKaTairavtrrov^ (AB, dKaTaTrao-Tovs) 
a/io/jTtos'; OT writes incessabiles deh'ctis -.—A, incessabili delicto {dd, cl, incessabiUs delicti, — and similarly CT, 
■i?tdesineniis delicti, and Aug., indesinentis peccati; with some gr mss, aKaTairavtrTov a/iapTMi). 

ib. 20. coinquinationes. So FC(i?«? (cl), and Aug., Hier. ; gr, ra ixLaa-ixara :— AT, coinquinationis. 

ib. 22 {contigit) + ««m. So FCTc?*^ (cl), and Aug. ; {qu, gr ?] :— A, vi, om ; with gr }^AB ; most 
gr (S'CKLP, and mss), oTj/AySejSr/Kcv 8e. 

?^. ib. caeni. So CT, and Aug. -.—AFdd (cl), and Hier., luti. 

iii. I. 2» commonitione. So CTdd, cl ; gr, ei/ viro^ui'ijcrei : — A, — onem (F, /« commotionem). 

ib. 2. a Sanctis prof etis. So F, cl ; gr, vtto t. dytW ■7rpo<l)7]TS>v : — ACTdd, sanctorum prophetarum. 

ib. 3. conscientias. So CT: — AF(/(/ (cl), concupisceniias ; with gr, iTrt^u/Aias. 

j'J. 4. {patres) + ww/n". So <frf; gr (ms 69 and two more) + rji^wv : — AFCT (cl), om ; with all gr else. 

ib. 7. seruati. So FCT : — Add (cl), reseruati. Gr, Tripovixtvoi. 

ib. ib. in die. So </</: — AFCT (cl), in diem ; gr, eU ■^fj.epav. 

ib. 10. transient. So Frfi/ (cl) ; CT, m, Aug., transcurrent) ; gr, TrapeXeuVoi/Tai : — A, transeunt. 

ib. ib. (at end) + {et) terra {autem) et quae in ipsa sunt opera exurientur [sic]. So (exurentur) 
CTdd (cl), and Aug. ; gr AL and some, (rai) y^ (Sc) koX to. iv aiir-g epya KaTaKaTJo-eraL (J^BKP, 
fvpiQ-qo-erai ; C, a<j>avia-6rj(jovTai) ; so m, et terra et ea quae in ipsa opera omnia [om verb] : — AF, and 
Cassiod., om. — See Tisch. in loc. 

ib. 12. {properantes) in aduentum. So ¥dd hrl (cl) ; gr, orTreu'Sovras t. Trapoucriav ; CT, and Aug., 
ad praesentiam : — A, aduentu. 

ib. 13. secundum promissa. So CT, cl : — AYdd, hrl, et promissa. But of gr, A alone reads xai; all 
else, Kara, (ra iirayylKjxaTa, or to eTrdyyeX/ta). 

(3) I John. 

i. I. tractauerunt. Similarly contr{a)ectauerunt, ¥CTdd (cl), also Tert. ; gr, i>l/riXd.<f>rja-av: — A, 

ib. 2. mani/esta{ta) est + nobis. So CT : — AFdd (cl) om ; with all gr, 

ib. 7. si . . . ambulemus. So Ydd; all gr, eav . . . ire/otTrarfi/xev : — ACT, cl, .rz . . . ambulamus. 

ib. 10. facimus. So A'FTdd (cl) ; gr, Troiov^iev : — AC, h, faciemus. 

ii. 4. (after mendax est) — «/. So A ; also gr AP, mss 13 27 29, om KaC: — FCTdd (cl), et {in hoc) ; 
■with most gr {km. iv toutoi) : — A, et in eo (qu., gr hi avrm ?). [After et, h hiat.^ 

ib. 5. {uere) in hoc. So FCTdd (cl), and h ; all gr, a.\rj6S>^ iv Tovr<a : — ^A, uere in eo (no gr). 

ib. 12. remit\t'\untur. So FCT<W (cl), h; gr, d<^eWTat : — A, remittentur {no gr). 

z'i. 14. (after cognouistis patrern) + scripsi uobis patres quoniam cognouistis eum qui ab initio est. So 

Fdd (F, quia), h (writes quia cognou est, but by oversight om scr. uob. patres); all gr, typaij/a 

ifuv iraiSCa on iyviaKare Tov ■Trarepa : — ACT, cl, om. 

Note that in vv. 13, 14, D writes scribo in the first four places, scripsi in the remaining two; 
Fdd write scribo in all six places ; A, scribo in the first four places, scripsi in the last {om the fifth) ; 
CT and cl (these also om fifth), scribo in all their five. Nearly all gr write ypd^w in the first three, 
iypa<j/a in the last three; which is evidently the right arrangement; but K and some mss, ypdcfx^ in 
the fourth. 

ib. ib. adolescentes (as in ver. 13). So FCT, h: — iuuenes, A dd {c\); gr, viavicrKoi, as in 13. Thus 
the gr warrants no such change of noun as in Add; nor the inverse change of T and h {iuuenes in 13 
adolesc. here). 

ib. \<).ut manifestifiant. So F {h, ut praesto fiat) : — ACT{dd) cl, ut vianifesti sint ; gr, iVo iJMvepoiOuxnv. 

ib. 23. {qui) + autem {confitetur). So CT, m : — KFdd (cl), h, om ; and all gr. (D writes confitebitur, 
but corrects.) 

ib. ib. {et patrem) + et filium. So m, also Cypr., Lcf., Hil. :— AFCT«f(/(cl), h, om ; all gr om (gr KL 
om the clause). Cp, 2 Joh. ii. 9. • 

ib. 25. repromissio. So FCTdd (cl) : —A, h, promissio (all gr, 17 eVayytXia). 

2 F2 


1 Joh. ii. 25. nobis. So Q.'Ydd hrl (cl) ; nearly all gr, riylv :— AF, nobis ; with gr B, vjilv. 
ib. 2g. + et (omnis). So Fdd (cl) ; with gr i^ACP, &c. :— ACT hrl, k om ; with gr BKL. 
iii. I. ignorat .... ignorauit. See below, p. ccxxxiv. 

ib. 3. (before ilk) — et. So T; with all gr -.—KYCdd (cl), ins. 

ib. 6. uidet. So F : — ACTdd (cl), ^, «z(/z'/ ; gr, ewpaKcv. 

ib. 10. (y«z" non)facit iustiliam, CT hrl, -4 y; gr, 6 /x^ irotuii' StKatoo-ui/^i/ : — kYdd[z\), m, est iustus 
[?«, gr?]. 

ib. 1 1, {dilegamus) ab inuicem. So (»« a3) A q -.—AYCTdd (cl), alterutrum ; gr, ayaTru/ici/ dWijXovs. 

?'4. 12. {cain) + ^«i'. So CT(?(?, cl, and q : — AF, h, om qui, and so all gr. 

ib. ib. {propter) quod. So T : — AFCdd (cl) ; quid; h q, cuius rei gratia (gr, xap'" "i/os). D w/ also 
ins idea before propter. 

ib. 13. {pdit) uos. So C, and cl; all gr, v/tSs : — KY'Ydd, h q, nos. 

ib, lb. (before or after mundus) + hie. S,o hq :— AF, &c. (cl), om ; gr, o Koa-fioi. 

ib. 14. (dikgit) -vfratrem suum. So Cassiod. ; gr KLP and many, tov dSeXi^oV,— P and some add 
avToD : — AF, &c. (cl), h {q) om ; with gr J^AB. 

ib. 16. cognoscimus. So CT, m q:—AYdd{c\), h and Aug., cognouimus ; gr, eyi/uico/xei/. 

ib, ib. (after caritatem) — dei. So F, A q, and Aug. ; with nearly all %x:—kdd hrl (cl), + dei\ gr 
ms 52, + Biov : — CT, m, ipsius (Ambrstr., eius). 

ib. 17. {qui) + autem. So -% q: — AF, &c. (cl) om autem. All gr ins U. 

ib. ib. {fratrem . . .) necessitatem habere. So F, cl ; gr, xpuav ^xovra : — Add necesse habere ; CT, m q,. 
tgere ; h, cui opus est. 

ib. 18. [uerbo) tantum et {lingua). So CT, h q: — AYdd (cl), nee or neque {q, iantum uerbo neque); 
gr, /x,)j8e. 

Note that h def. in iii. 20, to end of Epistle. 

iv. 3. antichristus de quo {audistis). So dd, cl : — AF, quod ; CT, q, quern ; all gr, o [scil., ro tov 
avTixpicrrov ; SO F, hic est antichristi ; q, hoc est illius antichristi'\.^ 

ib. 4. {uicistis) eos. So FCT, q and Aug. ; all gr, avrovs (D also + sunt at end of verse) : — Add (cl), eum. 

ib. 7. dilegii caritatem. See below, p. ccxxxvi. 

ib. ID. non quod. So q\ gr, ov\oti: — AF, &c. {c\), non quasi nos. 

ib. ib. propitiatorem. So q (Aug., litatorem ; Lcf., expiaiorem) : — AF, &c. (cl), propitiationem ; gr,. 

zi5. 14. filium + suum. So CTdd (cl), y : — AF «»« .r««»2 (gr, Tof vtov). 

ib. 15. quisquis. So F, (frf (cl) ; CT, quisque : — A, ^, quicunque (gr, os av). 

z'J. 20. quomodo^ deum dilegit. So also Cypr. {quoniam), Lcf. {quia), diligit deum : — AF, &c. (cl), {q)^ 
quoniam diligo deum ; gr, on dyajrS tov 6eov. 

V. I. dilegit genitorem. So CT, wz ^ : — Add, cl, <?«'/. ^«W2 qui genuit (F ow). All gr, tov ytvi/jjcravTo. 

?'5. 2. _^/wf. So CT, q : — AFdd (cl), natos (gr, to. tckvo). 

ib. 6. (z« (j^«(z) tantum. So ^ : — AF, &c. (cl), solum (gr, fx.6vov). 

ib. ib. {sanguine) + et spiritu {qui testificatur). So CT,' but (after spiritu) they proceed, spiritus est,. 
which words D om; gr A, mss 21 41, also read itve.vfjM.Ti. here {suhst. (01 ai/xaTi) : — AF</i5? (cl), also q, 
write sanguine, et spiritus est ; and so most gr, iv tm aifiaTi. koL to irveC/xa co-Ttv to /jLaprvpovv. 

ib. 10. {qui non credit) filio. So A'CT, cl ; gr A and some mss, T(p vicS: — A om (with no gr) : — 
Y, filium; dd, in filium ; m, ihu xpo ; q alone (with most gr, t^ 6iia) in deo. 

ib. 1 1. + est (at end). So FCTdd (cl), q ; all gr exc. one ms : — A om. 

ib. 12. {non habet filium) + dei. So A'FCT, q ; all gr : — Add (cl), om. 

ib. 16. si quis. So CT; all gr, edv rts : — AFdd (cl), j«z'; [17 /^z'a/]. 

ib. ib. petal. So CT(^(/ (cl) : — F, petet (so q, posiulabit) ; gr, aiT^trei : — A hrl, petit. 

' Note that ^«o«^ of AF wrongly follows the gr, where to [Ttvf.vp.a'] is antecedent to (neut.); anti- 
christus (A), or spiritus antichristi (F), would require quern, as T and q have it. 

2 Quomodo for quoniam (or $■«?'«) in D occurs repeatedly in oh. v ; see vv. 2, 10, 15, 20. 
' CT in preceding sentence add, et spiritum after sanguinem. 


I Joh. V. i6. + pro eo. So CT : — A and the rest, and q, om ; and all gr. 

ib. lb. dabitur ei uiia. So dd, cl : — AFCT, q, dahit ei uitam ; all gr, Suaei oxt!^ ^oi-ijv, 

ib. ib. peccanti. So 'Fdd{c\) : — A, peccaniibus ; CT, {q) his qui peccant ; all gr, afiapTavowiv. 

ib. ib. (at end), om quis. So FCT, most gr -.—Add hrl (cl), ins [^ hiat'] ; so a few gr mss, ns. 

ib. 20. {filio eius) + ihu xpo. So CTdd, mq ; also gr ^^BKLP, &c. : — AF hrl (cl), om ; with gr A. 
and ms 162. 

ib. ib. (before uerus) + deus. So (after uerus) FCTdd, cl ; all gr, 6 dXTj^tvos Otos : — A, m, om deus. 

(4) 2 John. 

1. eiusfiliis. So CT: — A and all lat else, natis eius; all gr, tois rexvois airq's. 

3. {sit) uobiscum. So FCTdd hrl (cl) ; gr K and most mss (/tte^' vixSiv) : — A, noiiscum ; with gr ^^BLP' 
(gr A om), and some mss {ixtO' ■^/iSv). 

6. {hoc est) + enim {mandatum). So (or enim est) CT hrl dd (cl) : — AF, hoc viandatum est {om enim). 
No gr + yap. 

(5) 3 John. 

2. per omnia opio. (See infr, p. ccxxxiv.) 

4. maiorem gratiam. (See infr, p. ccxxxviii.) 

7. {pro nomine enim) + «zkj. So dd, cl, some others : — AFCT om eius ; with all gr mss and. 
many mss. 

2 1 . uidit. So FCUdd (cl) ; gr, impaKtv : — A, uidet. 

12. (before) demetrio) + <?«. So T : — AFCdd, cl, and </, om de ; and so all gr, Srii/.riTpi<o. 

14. «»««■«■) + tui. So (^ : — AF, &c. (cl), om ; gr, ot <^iXot. 

z'i. {saluta) + /«. So CT : — AFdd (cl), and d, om. No gr wf <ru after do-ira^ov. 

(6) JUDE. 

I . uocatisque. Similarly dd, cl, et uocatis : — AFCT (with all gr) om copulat. 

3. {traditae) sanctae {fidei). So dd\ — AFCT (cl), Sanctis; gr, rots dyiois. 

5. (after scientes) ^ semel. So Lcf., and ms 163: — AFdd {c\), ins, with gr ABCL and many: — 
CT ins before populum . . . saluans, with gr Ji and ms 68. 

II. in uiam cain. So CT. also Lcf. -.—AFdd, uia ; cl, in uia ; gr, rp 68(3. 

12. qui .... maculati. So CT : — AFdd, cl, maculae {om qui) ; gr, 01 . . . . <rn-iXdSes. 

15. {de omnibus) duris + uerbis eorum. So (but om eorum) CT, and Lcf. ; also gr J<C, and mss 
6813, &c. (wept irdvTmv rS>v a-KkrjpZv Xoyuv) : — AFdd, cl, ow« uerbis eorum, with gr ABKLP, &c. 

18. {ambulantes) in impietatibus. So C, cl :— AF, impietatum (T, impietatem; dd, impie; gr, 
T. do-e/SetSj'. 

21. (end) expectantes misericordiam dni di nri ihu xpi in uitam aetemam. So (nearly) T, cl ; all 
gr : — KSdd om. Note that no lat exc. D ins dei ; and no gr, ^eoB. 

22. diiudicatos. So T (mg), Cassiod. ; gr If^ABC, and many, SiaKpivo/xo'ovs : — AFCT (txt) dd, cl, 
iudicatos (similarly Hien). Note that no lat supports SioKpivo/xei/ot (of KLP, &c.). 

25. saecula saeculorum. So dd, cl, and Cassiod.; gr L, mss 13 93 95 99, tovs aiivas rmv aliui/wv: — 
AFCT, after gr in general, om saeculorum. 

{b) In our text of the Epistles of SS. Peter and John, dittographs appear 
as follows: — 

I Pet. i. 22. in oboedentia ad oboediendum caritatis (gr, hi ry vttoko^). 

Here Fdd, and cl, give the obvious and exact rendering, in oboedientia (A, in oboedientiam) caritatis ;. 
T, and m \_q hiaf], substitute ad oboediendum caritati. The tautology of our text (with its consequent 
breach of grammar) results from combination of the two. 


1 Pet. iv. 12. nolite mirari nolite pauere (gr, /n^ iivi^io-Oe). 

In this case, mtrari (so Cypr.) has been substituted in D for peregrinari, the equivalent offered 
for the gr verb by AF (so cl). The nolite pauere at the end is given by CT (and apparently by q), as 
altern. for expauescere, which CT and q likewise write for mirari (so too Fulgent., ap. Sabat. in loc.) ; 
also Tert., ne expauescatis). Both verbs {expauescere, pauere) are apparently glosses on the unfamiliar 
peregrinari, which have made their way together into the text of CT; the latter into that of D, 
subjoined to the O. L. mirari. 

2 Pet. i. 3. omnia donauit diuinae uirtutis suae quae donata est (gr, SeSiapyjixevrj';). 

Here uirtutis .... quae donata est, in D as in AF, represents Suva/^iecos .... SeSosprifiivr]^ (so nearly 
all gr) ; while m gives donauit (as also F'). Thus the reading of D retains that of O. L. m, and adds 
to it that of AF and vg generally. CTdd, and cl, read donata sunt, with gr K and ms 25, SeStuprj/xiva : 
q gives donatae (= SeSmprj/xhrj's), equivalent to the rendering of AF. 

ib. ii. 16. suliugale animal mutum (gr, virot^vyiov a.^wvov). 

So (nearly) some mss, and cl {suhiug. mut. an.). But KFCTdd, and corb 2 ap. Sabat., om animal; 
while Orig. (lat. In Num., xiii. 8), has mutum animal {om suhiug.). Thus subiugale and animal are two 
renderings of itro^vy., combined in D, &c. 

I Joh. iii. I. {Propter hoc) {a) saeculum ignorat ms quoniam et ipsum ignorauit {b) hie mundus non 
nouit nos quia non nouit. — The second member of this passage, marked {b), evidently repeats the 
former {a), each being a rendering of the gr 8ia tovto Koa-fjLO's ov yivdia-Kei 17/tas on ovk iyvm avrov, — 
except that {b) neglects to render the concluding avrov. — AFdd, and cl read the clause {5), supplying 
eum at end (but om hie). CT alone of vg retain a vestige of {a), reading ignorauit {—bit) for the 
second non nouit of {b). But of Old-Lat., h (though mutilated) attests the first verb of {a), reading 
propter {ea'\ .... egnorat [sic]; omitting, however, the rest of the sentence. The archetype oik must 
have presented {a) as its rendering of the gr; and D here follows this O. L. text, but appends to it 
the vg rendering in an incomplete form. 

lb. V. 16. peccanti si non ad mortem est peccatum €Ld mortem autem peccatum est. — All else (exc. CT, 
which expand), peccanti[bus ; see on this word in p. ccxxxiii] non ad mortem Est peccatum ad mortem. The 
gr is TOts d/iiapTavoucrtv //.^ Trpos Itrriv aL/xapTia Wjoos Odvarov. D evidently renders ecrrtv ap.apTia 
twice over (misled by the repeated ad mortem), — connecting est peccatum with the preceding words, and 
again {peccatum est) with the following ; and he then inserts si before ad mortem ('\ and autem after ad 
mortem^'''', to complete the antithesis. 

3 Joh. 2. {carissimi) {a) per omnia opto te benefacere et saluuvi esse {b) de omnibus orationem facio 
prospere ingredi et ualere. — h.dd and cl give {h) as the rendering of the gr (ttc/di ttavTiav f.v-)(op.a.L tre 
evoSova-6ai. Kol vyiaCvuv), and also F (only with ideo in (for de) omnibus), — all, however, supplying the 
lacking te after prospere. — D alone gives {a) + {b), an obvious doublet. — CT give a rendering inter- 
mediate between {a) and {h), per omnia opto (C, obsecro) te bene agere et ualere.'^ Here D does well in 
admitting the more exact rendering {b) of vg ; but he errs in retaining (no doubt from some O. L. 
text) the superfluous and inadequate one {a), else unrecorded, which he places first. 

ib. 8. suscipere . . . participes ut conoperati simus. All lat else, suscipere . . . ut cooperatores simus. 
The gr is, viroXay«./3av€tv . . . Iva. o-vvepyoi •yei'oS/Ac^a. It is plain that (rvvepyoC is here represented twice 
■over {participes, conoperati {cooperatores)) ; but participes is not recorded from any other text. 

{c) Of the readings in these Epp., i, 2 Pet.; 1, 2, 3 Joh., Jud., in which 
D stands alone among Vulg. mss, not many are of interest. The following are 
sufficient examples : — 

I Pet. i. 12. aeuanguelizauerunt uos. So gr, v/x,as : — all other vg, uobis ; q diverges [s hiat']. 

ib. 23. renuati. Possibly for renouati: — all else, renati {a.vayeycvvriiJ.evoi). 

ii. 17. honorate . . . honorate, gr (rtjuijo-aTe .... tijuote (but ms 73, Tt/oHjo-are) : — all other vg, 
honorate . . . honorificate. 

iii. i.fraternitatis amore. Nearly all vg else, and m, fraternitatis amatores; CT, fraternitatem amantes 
{^ikd8ikfj>oL). Cp. i. 22, where all have in fraternitatis amore (els i^btXaSeX^tW). 

' Probably ;per omnia of DCT is wrongly written ior praeter omnia, = ^rae omnibus, — as A. V., with 
•many expositors, understands Trepi Travruiv. 


1 Pet. iii. 9. ut henedicHonem haereditaits uestrae possedeatis. All else, ut benedictionem haereditale 
pOSSld. {tva tiXoyiav K\rjpovoix-q<rr]T€). 

iv. 4. (after hlasfemantes) + mstram conuersaiionevt. No other lat ; no gr. 

ib, 1 1, cut gloria. All vg else, and q, Aug., cui est gl. : most gr (<5 Itniv) ; but gr A, and ms 1 3 and 
a few more, om l<rtiv. 

ib. ij. {st .... anobis) + quaeritur. No other lat ; no gr. 

V. 3. dominantes in clericis. No other lat; KYdd, cl, in cleris; CT, h, in clerum; m, in dominatione 
fratrum \_q hiaf\ ; gr, KaTaKvpitiovm rmv Kkfjpoiv. 

ib. 8. (after uigelate) + ex animo excitamini. No other lat ; no gr. 

ib. 9. in fide intigra. No lat else ins integra ; no gr : — CTdd, cl, in fide, also h \_q kiai] : — AF, fide 
only ; gr, rj} ■n-Ca-Tei. 

2 Pet. i. 3. donauit. See above, p. ccxxxiv. 

ii. 4. {rugientibus) infemis. All vg else, inferni; gr, o-ejpais (or aripoli) t,6^ov (but XA, fo<^o£s[?]) ; 
A seems to give a double rendering {carceribus) caliginosis inferi; also Aug., carceribus caliginis inferi. 
(For rugientibus, see below, p. ccxxxvii.) 

ib. 7. {nefandorum) iniusta conuersatione. AF (««/.) iniuria convers. ; (/^, cl (««/".) iniuria ac luxoriosa 
conuers.; CT, »«/". impudica convers. Gr, t^s roiv a6ecrfii,<ov iv doreXyci'iji avao-Tpot^ij^- — AH these readings are 
clearly wrong : it is safe to conjecture that iniuria ought to be corrected, in luxuria — the obvious 
rendering of iv do-ekyeCo., as everywhere in i and 2 Pet. and Jud.' 

ib. 10. (carnem) + alteram. No other lat; no gr (Interpol, from Jud. 7). 

ib. 20. (before superanlur) + in diliciis. No other lat; no gr. 

iii. I. (hanc ecce nobis + iam. No other lat ins iam ; but all gr, ravrriv ^817 .... v/uv ; and no gr 
attests ecce, which all vg ins. In this instance D alone preserves a true rendering, but with it the- 
erroneous ecce, which apparently represents a gr reading iSe, not now supported by any gr authority. 

ib. 8. non latet. All else non lateat ; all gr, p.y) Xav^avera). 

ib. 9. (at end) + expectat. No lat else ; no gr. 

ib. 10. (lit fur) + in nocte. No lat else ; but gr CKL and some mss, + iv wktL (as 1 Thess. v. 2). 

ih. ib. soluuntur. All vg else, soluentur; Aug., resoluentur. Gr J^BCP, Xu^^o-eTat ; AKL, — iJo-ovTat- 
(AL, KaTOKaij<r£Tai). 

ib. II. (Jiaec . . . cum desoluta sint). All vg else, dissoluenda sint; exc. T, and Aug., his . . . pereuntibus ;. 
m has eorum . . . pereuntium. All gr, tovtcov .... Xvo/teVui'. 

ib. ii- priori {firmitate). All ]a.t else, propria ; gr, ISlov. 

I Joh. i. 2. manifesta {est). All else, manifestata ; gr, itfiavepwOr]. 

ib. 7. ad lucem. All else, ad inuicem ; most gr, /ter' dXX-qXwv : — but T, cum eo (hrl, cum deo) ; gr A,. 

/*eT' OVToC. 

ib. 9. {fidelis est) + </«j. All else ow2, lat and gr. 

ii. I. sed si (quis). All vg else, sed et si; and so h (but ow f^(f) ; gr, Koi idv tis. 

ib. 2. (before tantum) — aulem. All lat else z'w ; and all gr, (St, before fji.6vov). 

ib. 6. (before el ipse) + w. All lat else om. Of gr, ^CKP, and most mss, ko.\ avTo<s outcos ; but AB,. 
some mss, om ovtus. 

ib. 7. (at end) auditis. All lat else, audistis ; gr, ijKovVaTc. 

?3. 13. (after jcniJo uobisy^^ —patres. All lat else ins, and all gr. Note that D by a similar lapse 
omfilioliin ver. 12 (but interl. filii). 

ib. 16. (after carnis) — est. So all gr ; but KCdd (cl) ins ; also (after oculorum) FT. 

j'i. 28. (beginning) — et nunc filioli manete in eo. All else ins. 

iii. 2. (after scimus) + ^of. All lat else om ; also all gr (but KL and many mss add Se). 

J The doublet reading of dd (cl) retains a trace of this ; also a MS which Lucas Br. {in loc.) cites as 
reading luxuriosa (alone). That of T is probably an emendation ; unless we may suppose that CT here 
represent the true vg text {impudicitia is the vg rendering of dcreX-yeta where it occurs in other Books, 
[only Mk. vii. 22 ; Rom. xiii. 13 ; 2 Cor. xii. 21 ; Gal. v. 19 ; Eph. iv. 19]), and that in luxuria is a survival 
of O.L. 


1 Joh. iii. 10. (at end) + non est de deo (repeated from previous sentence). No lat else ; no gr. 

ib. 1 1 . (after quoniam) — haec est adnuntiatio quam. All vg else ins ; similarly h q {hoc est mandatum 
quod') ; and so all gr. 

il. 1 3. {fratres) + mei. No lat else ; of gr, KL and most write /*ou after ahi\<^oi; but >{ABCP, &c., om. 

ib. 16. (before et nos) + sic. No other lat; no gr [h Mat, and in ver. 20 def. finally]. 

ih. 22. si ... . custodiamus. All vg else, quoniam .... custodimus {q, seruamus); and so most gr, 

OTt . . . T-qpovixev : — but ^^AK, &C., Tr]pu>iJi.ev, 

iv. 7, 8. {qui dilegit) + caritatem {qui non dilegit) + earn. So D (txt). No lat else reads 

(7) caritatem (see for D (mg), &c., p. ccxxxviii in/r) ; all else (8) om earn ; and so all gr. 

ib. 10. (beginning) — in hoc est caritas. All else ins, lat and gr. 

ib. 20. {quern uidet) + quotidie. All else om (lat and gr). Note that all lat have uidei; all gr, 

V. 1 . (before qui dilegit) — et omnis. All else ins, lat and gr. 

ib. 6. (before per aquam) — uenit. All else ins, lat and gr. 

ib. 12. {uitam)+ aeternam. None else ins, lat or gr. 

ib. 13. habebitis. All lat Q\se., habetis ; gr, ex'" (but L, ms 113, «X'?tc). 

ib. 14. habeamus. All lat else, habemus; all gr, txofiev, exc. A and a few mss, f.)(mp.€v, 

2 Joh. 3. (at end) + uera ihu filio. No lat else ; no gr. 

ib. 9. (after in doctrina'-'^'') + xpi. No lat else; but so gr KLP and most mss, + xpifToS ; J^AB, 
ms 13 and a few, om ; <fif j«3j/ eius, and so Lcf. 

3 Joh. 3. {gauisus) + i-wm (— j^wi). All lat else, gauisus + f«« (— e«i'»z) ; of gr, ABCKLP and 
most write {ixdp-rjv) + yap ; J^ and some mss, om yap. 

ib. 6. benefacitis. AF and many vg, bene/acies ; cl, benefaciens ; CT, dd, benefacis ; gr, koXus irotijtrets 
or K. TToi^o-as. — For deducens (D with FCTdd^ and many vg), A writes ducens ; gr, irpojr£/x.i/fas : — cl, 
deduces ; gr C, irpoTre/ii/icts. 

2'^. 9. «' M ^«z' amat principatum {gerere). All lat else, primatum {om si) ; gr, 6 ^tXoTrpcoTcvajr. 

/3. 10. ex commoniam [sic]. All else om ex ; AFCTi/rf, commoneam ; cl, commonebo ; gr, viTofji.vri<r<o. 

ib. ib. fecit . . . prohibuit . . . iecit. All lat &\se,/acif, prohibet, eicit; gr, irotci, KuXuei, fK^dWu. 

ib. 1 1 . carissimi nolite. All else, singular. 

2Z1. z'i. malignum. All lat else, malum ; all gr, to k^kov. 

ih. 12. «m/w. All vg else «w/i'; d, scis. Of gr, ^^ABC, &c., oTSas; but KLP and most, oXhare. 

Jud. 1. — f rater. All else ins ; and so gr. 

ib. 4. (after iudicium) — inpii. All else z«j (but CT place after homines) ; with all gr (d<rc)8ets). 

ib. 7. + j«a« {simili modo) + harum. All else oot ^«ae and harum ; and so gr. 

2'3. 12. conuiuentes. All else, conuiuantes ; gr, o-uvcwmxoV^'""' 

!^. 14. ueniet. All else, «f«2V; gr, ^X^ev. 

z'i. 22. uos. All lat else, hos ; gr, 06s /ucV. 

{d) On the other hand, D shows affinity with A not infrequently, by agreements 
with its text, in some cases with, but in many without, other confirmation, — 
(a) in errors, (/3) in notable cases of preservation or correct representation 
of the text. 

(a) D with A and other MSS. in erroneous, inexact, or questionable readings. 

1 Pet. i. 7. {diiier pretiosior) + sit. So AD, with FCT (also Aug.) :— other vg (cl), and s, om ; with gr. 

ib. 22. caritatis. AD, with Ydd hrl (cl) :— for ueritati, CT ; m, fidei; all gr, i^s dXij^eias. See 
above, p. ccxxxiii, on this verse. 

' So Matthaei, Corrigenda (to Cath. Epp.) ; in his text of dd he wrongly prints deduces. 


1 Pet. ii. 23. iniuste. AD, with YCYdd hrl' (cl), and Cypr., &c. :— but hrl, and q, also Aug. 
(/» Joh. 21), iuste ; gr, dcKaius. 

iii. 1 8. mortificatos .... uiuificatos. AD, with CTdd : — for tnortificatus .... uiuificatus, FT hrl (cl) 
\_q hiaf\ ; all gr, ^avarw^eis .... ^<oo7roirj6c(s.' 

?3. 22. (after in dextera da) + deglut{t)ens mortem ut uiiae aeternae heredes efficeremur, AD, with CTdd 
hrl and most vg (cl) : — F om, and all gr \_q kiat']- 

iv. I. dest'/. AD: — FCT and all vg else, desiit; gr. ■n-iiravrai. 

V. 2. «o« coactos. AD (D, not A, supplies eos before, and writes spontaneos (for spontanee) after) ; — 
F, »<?« foac/o ; CVdd, cl, «o« «ac/« ; h, non ex compuhione ; q, non ex c\oado (?)] ; gr, dvayKaerTois. 

2 Pet. ii. 4. rugientibus. AD only: — F and allvg else (cl), rudentibus (C, caienis; T, rueniibus 
catenis) ; gr KLP, &c., o-cipois : — but gr J^ABC, o-ipots ; A, carceribus, also Aug. (and Fulgent., but 
again catenis). For infernis ( — «i), see above, p. ccxxxv. 

ih, 10. sectas facere. AD only; F, Wf/aj (o»2 verb); dd, cl, wf/aj introducere ; CT, maiestatem {om 
verb) ; all gr, 8o|os only. 

I'J. 13. uoluntatem {existimantes). AD only: — YCdd (cl), uoluptatem (T — /«); gr, ^Sov^i/. 

I'i. ?3. coninquinationis {et maculae). AD only : — Ydd (cl), coinquinationes ; CT, coinquinati et com- 
maculati [m similarly) ; gr, ottiXoi koi fiS/Lioi. 

iii. 12. rf«z' (/z«. So D and [diei dni) AT (cl), also Ang. ; gr CP, &c., t^s to5 Kvpiou ^^ipai : F, rfw?' 
rf«', with all gr else (deov). Of other lat, C writes dei nostri, hrl, dei only (both owz diei) ; <f(/, (/z«z only. 

I Joh. i. 3. + et {adnuntiamus nobis). AD only, with gr J^ : — FCTdd (cl) om et here ; and so all gr 
elpe om koi before airayyiXko/xtv. 

lb. iii. I . (after nominemur) et simus. AD, with dd, cl (no gr) : — FCT hrl, and h, et sumus ; with gr 
J^ABCP, &c., /cai eo-fiei' (but gr KL and many om). 

ib. iv. 1 6. {caritati) + dei. AD only ; no gr : — N^Y^Tdd (cl), om dei. 

ib. ib. 19. {dilegamtis) inuicem. AD only ; — F om ; with gr AB, &c. ; — CTdd hrl (cl), deum\ gr J^ 
and mss 13 68 69 137, &c., tov B^dv (KL and most, awov). 

Jud. 1 3. procella. AD, with Ydd and most vg (cl) : — but CT, caligo \ gr, ^d^os. 

Besides the above, there are cases where all our vg texts support AD against 
all extant gr. 

1 Pet. v. 3. (at end) + ex animo. So all vg ; with no gr : — but h q om; and also m, which, however, 
ins in ver. 2 {ex animo lihenter) ; gr, Ikovo-ius . . . irpo^v/iios ; vg, spontanee . . . uoluntarie), where it seems 
to be a doublet for ■irpoOv//,iiK. Probably it has strayed thence into ver. 3. 

2 Pet. iii. 4. promissio aut aduentus. So all vg, but no gr supports aut (^ cTrayyeXta t'^s rrapova-Cai) 
I Joh. iv. 3. qui soluit. So all vg, and Iren. (lat)', Orig. (lat)', Tert., Aug. (who seems to use both 

readings), to like eifect Lcf., qui destruit; no extant gr : — q, qui non confitetur; all gr, o /a^ OjnoXoyei. 
Socrates {Hist. ,vii. 32) states that some ancient codices read o Xvei, and that this passage was so cited 
against Nestorius. 

Jud. 9. imperet. So all vg : — all gr, cn-tTt/ajjo-at. Probably an early scribe's error for increpet (as in 
the similar passage, Zach. iii. 2, where the LXX €7riTi/;i^trat is represented by vg increpet). 

(j8) D with A and others in right or defensible readings or renderings. 

1 Pet. iv. 14. gloriae dei spiritus. AD, and F: — CTtfrfhrl (cl), quod est honoris {gloriae, CT hrl om) 
et uirtutis dei et qui (C, quis) est eius spiritus. Of O.L., uirtutis only is legible in q {h hiat). Of gr, BKL, 
&c., read to rrji 8dfi;s KoX TO Tov Qiov TTvev/xa (which is nearly equivalent to the ADF reading) ; but 
HAV, &c., subjoin after 8d|i;s, kol (t^s) Swa/tcus {airov). (Before uirtutis, q probably wrote gloriae et.) 

' Apparently the printed edd., in general, incl. Complut. (1518) and the Sixtine (1590), agreed in this 
serious error ; which was finally removed from the Clementine (1592), and from all subsequent edd. See Tisch. 
in loc. for Bede's treatment of the passage. See also the note of Lucas Brug., who accepts this correction of 
it from the Roman Correctors as an " egregia emendatio." * III. xvi. 8. ^ In Matth, vi. %. 

2 G 


1 Pet. iv. 14. (at end) + ah aliis blasfematur [sic] ab nobis autem honorificatus. So D, with A {blasfe- 
matus) ; similarly (prefixing quod) CT hrl, blasfematur .... honorificalur (and so apparently q) ; with 
gr KLP and most mss :—Ydd (cl) om ; with gr SA.B, and some. 

V. s- insinuate. AD, with F</(/ (cl) ; gr, iyKo/x^uxTaa-Oe: CT, A »? (less exactly) induite [jj hiaf]. 

2 Pet. i. 3. {jjiirtutis . . . quae) donata est. AD, with F, most gr, t^s Sumjuews . . . ht^mp-qij.ivq's : — 
CTdd (cl), omnia . . . quae donata sunt ; also A m, omnia . . . quae donantur; but q, donatae (see above, 
pp. CCXXX and ccxxxiv) ; gr KL, ms 25, -rravTa . . . ra . . . SeSeopT/jUeVa. 

ib. 12. incipiam. AD, with Ydd (cl) ; gr KBCP, &c., /tteXX^o-o) :— CT, ^ and Cassiod., non differam ; 
gr KL, ovK d/j-eXya-o}. 

ib. 17. (at end) — ipsum audite. AD om, with FCT M -4 :—dd (cl) w. 

1 Joh. i. 4. (before gaudium) — gaudeatis et. AD, with CT hrl ; all gr om : — Ydd (cl) ins. 

ib. ib. nostrum. AD, with FCT hrl; gr SBL and many mss, ijjuwv : — dd (cl), uestrum, with gr 
ACKP and most, vixSiv. 

ii. 22. non est (xps). AD, CTcW; gr, ovk ia-Tiv: — F, cl, h, om non. 

iv. 3. (after soluit ihm) + xpm. AD, with </</; gr KL and. most mss, \tov\ Irjo-ovv xpivrov : — FCT hrl 
(cl), also q, and Iren., Orig., Tert., Lcf., Aug., om xpm; with gr AB (toi' Irjo-ovv, — K writes l-qa-ovv 


V. 7. om whole verse {tres sunt . . . in caelo). AD, with F, also V (Vallicell.) ; all gr MSS and nearly 
all mss : — Cldd, most vg (cl), also m q, ins. (See Tisch. in loc.) Note that CXdd transpose 7 and 8, 
as also m q. — Moreover, ADF om hi before tres unum in 8 : — CT, cl, ins hi in 7 and %; dd m. 8 only 
(its 7). 

ib. 1 3. scripsi. AD, with CT ; all gr, eypaif/a : — Fdd (cl) scribo {q Mat). 

ib. 21. (end) — amen. AD, with 'Ydd, and m {q Mat) ; gr t<AB, &c. : — F hrl (cl) ins ; with gr KLP 
and most. 

2 Joh. 9. qui praecidit. So {praecedit) AF hrl, and Aug. ; gr AB, 6 ■n-podymv : — CT, qui credit ; 
dd, cl, and Lcf., qui recedit (apparently a corruption oi praecedit), with no gr support ; gr KLP and mss 
read 6 -n-apa^aivrnv (no lat). 

3 Joh. 4. maiorem .... gratiam. So D (txt), with A, and Ydd{c\) ; — gr B and mss 7 35 {jxt.iZ,orkpav 
. . : x^-P"' '• — -D (™S) ^"^j mains . . . gaudium ; gr J^ACKLP and most,, .... 

Jud. 5. {quoniam) ihs. AD, with Ydd (cl) ; gr AB and mss 6 7 13 29 : — for deus, CT, Lcf. ; gr C, 
mss 5 8 68, 6 6eos. Gr J^CKL and most, [6] Ku'pios (no lat). 

ib. 25. + cui {gloria). AD only ; with gr X only: — CTdd {cV), &c., lat and gr, om. 

Subsection iv. — Marginal Variants in the Seven Epistles ; General Remarks 

on the Text. 

In several places of the Catholic Epistles, D offers readings, interlined or set 
on its margin, most of them as alternatives, a few as corrections, some of which 
are worth noting. Thus — 

Jac. ii. 8. D (txt) has scripturam: D (Jnterl.), scripturas. (See above, p. ccxxv.) 
ib. iv. 4. D (txt), inimicitia. D (mg), inimica. (See above, p. ccxxvii.) 

1 Pet. iv. I. D (txt) cogitatione, with vg KFCdd (cl) ; gr, hvoiav: D (mg), with CT, and Aug., 

ib. ib. 3. D (txt) hominum, with CT, and Aug. : D (mg) with C and all vg else, gentium ; all gr, kdvwv. 

2 Pet. i. 3. D (txt) gloria, with all vg, and h q ; and all gr (Sd|s) = D (mg), gratia {sol). 

ib. ib. 13. D (txt), commonitione, with vg [F, in commotione'], all gr, cv [t^] vtto/avjjo-ci : D (mg), 
in comme[moratione'\, with h. 

ib. ii. 12. D (txt) periunt; most vg, cl, Kng., peribunt ; some, perient (so m) : D (mg), [^c']orump- 
antur [sic] ; with Hier. ; all gr, [KaTa]</>5ap7ja-ovTot. 

ib. iii. 4. D {t\t),pres [qu, = presbyteri ?] {sol): D (mg), patres, with all else ; and so all gr. 

I Joh. iv. 7. D (txt), caritatem : D (mg), fratrem, with QTYdd and q (T and q, + suum) : — AF, cl, 
om both ; gr A + rov dtov (but no lat, deum). (See above, p. ccxxxvi.) 


ijoh. V. 9. D^xt), deus : D (mg), dominus : all lat else om ; with all gr. (In ver. i o, where all else 
read ds, D writes dtts.) 

3 Joh. 4. D (txt), maiorem . . , . gratiam : D (mg), mains gaudium. (See above, in p. ccxxxviii). 

ib. 8. D (txt), uero {sol) : D (mg), with all vg, ergo ; all gr, olv. 

ih. 10. D (txt) om propter hoc {sol) :— D (mg) ins, with all else (lat and gr). 

On inspection of the above (after setting aside cases where D, in text or marg, or both, is 
unsupported) we find that— 

(a) D exhibits a vulg. text, with an O. L. text as alternative, in three instances, i Pet. iv. i , 
2 Pet. i. 13, ib. ii. 12 (but in the third of these, the O. L. evidence is divided). 
(j8) A vulg. text, with alternative after gr (supported by vg CT), 3 Joh. 4. 

(7) An Old-Lat. text, with alternative or correction from vg, in two instances, Jac. ii. 8, i Pet. iv. 3. 

(8) A text attested by gr only, with alternative after all lat and some gr, Jac. iv. 4. 

Note that in i Pet. iv. 3, CT only (of vg) are with D (txt) and Aug. ; also that, in 3 Joh. 4, CT 
are with D (mg) and gr. It may be presumed that in these places, CT derive from an O. L. source. 

The above lists show how closely the text of these Epistles in D is akin to 
that of A, — especially in its errors, which are grave and not few — the text of A 
of these Epistles (especially in i and 2 Pet.) being far short of the high standard 
of accuracy which it maintains in the Gospels. See e.g. (in p. ccxxxvii) i Pet. iii. 
18, 22 ; V. 2 ; 2 Pet. ii. 4, 13 ; i Joh. iii. i ; in which places the corrupt reading 
is avoided by F, and (in some of them) by CT also, and by other vg texts. 

On the other hand, in the signal case of i Joh. v. 7, 8, D shares with A and 
F (also V) the distinction of omitting the spurious verse of " the Three Heavenly 

Of the vg authorities, F, as it is the earliest, so it deserves to be reckoned 
the first in value in the Seven Epistles. CT, like our D, give a text considerably 
mixed with Old-Latin, but retaining a large proportion of sound Vulgate 
readings ; in dd, the text is similarly mixed, but in it the O. L. element is less in 
amount and the Vulg. .element inferior in quality. 

Section X. — The Apocalypse. 

Subsection i. — The materials available for comparison with the D-text of the 


In examining the D-text of the Apocalypse, which is to occupy this our 
concluding Section, we meet with a state of facts in the main similar to that 
with which Section IX has made us familiar. The questions to be considered 
are the same ; the materials forthcoming for our use are alike ; and we naturally 
adopt the same methods in handling them. 

Of these materials — the extant Latin mss,, Vulg. and Old-Lat., the former 
class is here represented by the same Codices as in the Catholic Epistles, — 
AFCTa!'^, and (occasionally) hrl. But as regards the latter class it is otherwise. 

2 G2 


Two complete Old-Lat. texts of this Book are happily available, each independent 
of the other, neither of them affected by Vulgate intermixture. 

Of these, one, absolutely complete, is preserved in the same great Codex, gg 
(" Gigas") which in Sect. VII we have cited as our main Old-Lat. witness for the 
text of Acts (while as regards the rest of the N.T. it is a Vulgate MS.). — The 
second is embodied in full in the Commentary of Primasius (an African Bishop of 
the sixth century) on the Apocalypse. We cite it zs, pr. — A third witness is that 
of h, the MS. so designated in Sectt. VII and IX ; which preserves considerable 
fragments, unfortunately but four, of the Book, exhibiting less than one-fifth of 
the whole ; enough, however, to prove that the /^-text is of the same origin and 
family as that which Primasius used. The Speculum also {m) contributes some 
extracts, from this as from the previous Books of N. T, Many citations from it 
are also to be found in early Latin writers — notably in Cyprian, and in Augustine. 
To Augustine moreover we owe the text exhibited by Primasius of chapters 
XX and xxi (to end of ver. 5} — this portion, together with the Commentary on it, 
being borrowed by the latter from the De Civitate Dei (x. 7-17). 

Yot pr, we follow the text of Haussleiter (Leipzig, i8gi); in which h also is printed. 

For gg, see in Sect. VII., p. clxxix, supr; — also for h (of which only i. i — ii. i, viii. 7 — ix. 12, 

xi. 16 — xii. 14, xiv. 15 — xvi. 5, are extant). 
In citing gr evidence, we use Q to denote Cod. Basilianus, more commonly known as B, — a 

misleading notation. The true B (Cod. Vaticanus) unfortunately lacks the Apocalypse, 

and the only Mss. available are KAC (part) PQ. 

Such being the materials, we propose in dealing with them to follow the 
general method of Sectt. VIII and IX ; and to examine the text of our D by 
noting its agreements with the Old-Lat. authorities, — ia) with that of gg, (b) with 
that of /r. (usually including that of ^, where forthcoming), {c) with the examples 
in which gg and pr concur. Under none of these heads do we here confine 
ourselves (as in the previous Sections) to examples in which D is opposed to A, 
but in every instance we give the evidence of A with that of the other Vulg. 
MSS. as above named. Also {d) we subjoin a collection of passages where D, 
agreeing with other Vulg. texts, opposes our Old-Lat. witnesses ; and finally {e) 
of readings for which D has no support from any of our Latin authorities. 

Subsection ii. — D with gg against or without pr {and h), 

Apoc. i. 3. et audit. So some vg and cl, also gg {el qui audit) -.—pr h and vg AFCT hrl dd, &c., 
et qui audiunt ; also all gr. 

ih. 5. lauit. So gg, with A.¥CTdd, &c., and cl; gr, XouVai/Ti, with PQ, most mss -.—prh, soluit ; 
with gr J^AC, mss i 6 28 36 38 69 79 99, Xia-avn. 

ib. 7. {nubibus) + caeli. D with gg sol ; no lat else ; no gr. Cp. Mt. xxiv, 30, xxvi. 64 ; Mc. xiv. 
62 — ; also Dan. vii. 13 (lxx [Theodot.]). 

ib. ib. plangumt se super eos. So {euni) gg, with ACTdd, cl (also F, eo) :—pr, uidehit {h, uidebunt) 
eum .... talem. All gr, Koi/roi/rai [eir'] avrov, for which pr h must have read ofovTai .... (probably) 
ToiovTov (= talem). 

ib. 13. (before candelabrorum) + uii. So gg, and A'FCT hrl dd ; gr i^Q, most mss :— but A om 
with pr h, also Cypr. ; gr ACP, some mss. 


: Apoc. i. 14. tamquam Una alba. So gg, AFdd, and cl ; all gr, mtpiov XevKov.-^pr k om alba, and 
(with CT) write uelul lana ; as also Cypr. 

ib. lb. et tamquam nix. So gg, and k'Udd, cl ; also {om et) AC, and F {aut for et) -.—pr h, ut nix ; 
Cypr., atct nix. Nearly all gr om copulat. before is xiiiiv \_h hiat, ii. i — viii. 7]. 

ii. 4. {aduersum le) + pauca. So gg, and a few vg : — AFCTdd, cl. om pauca, with pr; also all gr. 

ib, 5. {opera) + tua. So i^^: — pr om, with AF, &c., and cl ; and all gr. 

ib. 7. (after dabo) — et. So ^^g-, and cl with hrl and some vg ; gr X and some mss -.—pr, and 
AFCTrf</, JWi, with most gr. 

ib. 10. .{nihil) horum. So ^^, also YCldd, and cl :—/>/-, Cypr., and A, eorum. All gr om pron. 

jj. 13. Wii. So too isedes) gg, also AF, &c., and cl : pr, thronus. All gr, dp6vo<i. 

ib. 17. {dabo^^^) + e(/er« (de). So T (but o»? de), and to like effect gg {manducare, and so Ambr.) ; gr 
P and some mss, (^oyeiv : — all lat else om edere de, exc. pr, which retains de without verb. — Also, D and 
gg om ei here, with Tdd, Sec, and cl z—pr ins, with AFC ; and all gr (a«T<3). AC write to /xavva ; Q, 

TOC /* ; K, ^K TOV fJi. 

ib. ib. in calculo. So gg, and MFCTdd, cl :— >r, super calculum. A, m cakulum ; gr, «iri Tiji/ i/r^<^ov. 
ib. 18. «/ flammam. So also {tamquam flammam) gg. Add, cl ; most gr, u>s <)!>\dya : — -/r, and FCT, 
uf flamma ; gr i^ is <^\oi. 

ib. 20. «/ seducit. So D, and CT, with gg; also all gr (xac irXava) -.—pr, all vg, seducere (no gr). 
j'J. 21. («o» uult) poenitentiam agere. So ^^: — nearly all vg else, poeniteri; pr and CTdd, cl, — tere ; 
gr, /jteTavo^crai, 

ib. 24. altitudines. So with ^^ A'F, &c., cl ; all gr, ri jSa^eo (or— ^^) '.—pr, with CTrfrf, altitudinem 
(A, altitudinis). 

ib. 26. {dabo) illi. So with ^^, YQTdd, cl : — A, /r, «?' ; gr, oircp. 

?'/5. 27. r«^^^. So with gg, AF, &c., cl : — but pr, pascet ; all gr, ■aoi.^i.o.vCu Cp. Ps. ii. 9 (vg, reges ; 
Hier., pasces; Lxx, iroi/x.av<is). 

iii. 7. + «/ {cl{a)udit'-'^''). So with ^^, FCT : — pr, et qui claudit : — kdd, cl, om et. Most gr, Kai xXeiet 
(C), or Kol Kkeiuiv (SP, also {om koX) A), (Q diverges, with some mss). 

i3. 17. {quia) dicis. So with gg, m, and Cypr., also k'CTdd, cl ; as gr : — AF, dices \_pr hiatl- 
ib. ib. miserabilis. So with gg, all vg, and m (gr, tXccivos) : — except A (by lapse) mirabilis \_pr hiat]. 
Cypr., miser. 

iv. 2. sedis . . . sedem. So with ^^g-, ACTdd, cl, and F (but om sedem) : — pr, tronum (bis). 
ib. 10. adorabant. So with ^jg', AF, &c., cl : — pr, adorabunt ; gr MSS and nearly all mss, irpoo-- 
Kovriaovcnv, with hardly any variation — (one writes Trpoo-Kvi/ouo-iv, none irpoo-^Kwo-ui/). Note that ^^, 
with AFCT, inconsistently writes et mittent just after (= ^aXmxxw), not (as Y)dd, cl) mittelant ; pr has 
mittentes. Gr KAP and many mss, /SaA.oSo-ii'; J^Q and others, jSaWouo-ii' (no lat, mittunt). — For the 
preceding procedebant, see in Subsect. v infr. 

v. 9. cantant. So with.^^, AFCT, w ; gr (jtSouo-iv) : — (fi;/, cl, cantabant ; pr, cantantes. 
ib. 14. (before seniores) — xxiiii. So with ^^, AFCT, as gr mss and most mss : — hrl dd, &c., 
cl, and pr, ins. 

vi. I. dicentem. So AFCT with gg: — dd, cl, and pr, dicens. Gr, Xeyovros (i^, pi). 
ib. 5. staterem. So ^^ (w/) : — ACTdd, cl, /r, stateram (F, statera) ; gr, ^uydv. 
?i5. 6. dicentium. So with ^^, F^(/, cl (sc; animalium) : — ACT, /r, dicentem (sc, uocem) ; so all gr, 
Xeyovcrai' (<^o)fjj>'). 

z'i. 8. (after «/ weifi') + et ecce {equus). So with gg, AF, &c., cl (all gr, koi ISov) -.—pr om. 
ib. 12. — et (before cum aperui\jse'\t. So with gg, FCTdd, cl ; with gr mss exc. P, many mss : — A, 
pr, many gr mss with P, ins et. 

vii. 10. qui sedet. So with gg, A'YCTdd, cl : — A, qui sedit : — pr, sedenti; gr, tw Ka.Qf\fx.kvto. 
ib. 17. reget. So with gg, all vg ; and gr (all mss and some mss), ■n-oi^aver : — pr, regit ; with most 
gr mss, TToi/jiaCvei. Cp. (or pr, ii. 27, supr. 

ib. ib. deducet. So with gg, A'Vdd, cl ; gr mss and some mss (oSijyiJo-et) : — ACT, pr, deducit ; most 
gr mss (oST^yet). 

ib. ib. illos (bis). So with gg, dd ; gr, outous (bis) : — AFCT, cl, illos . . . eos. 

viii. 7. — conbusta est^"'-. So gg {am also et tertia pars arborum; as likewise gr Q) : — AFCT</</, ins . 
similarly cl, concremata est; pr, dearsit {ter); {h, usserunt .... cremauerunt \hiat~\). 


Apoc. viii. M. absinthius . . absinthium. So with gg, AC {hahintius) : — Tdd, cl, ahintkium (bis) : — 
F, abseniius .... absenlium ; hrl and h, absentium (bis) ; pr, absintus .... absintium. Of gr (^^') APQ, 
most mss, aij/ivOov .... oDpivBov, but l^ (txt), a^ivOiov (bis). 

ix. 13. — quatuor (before cornibus). So with ^^, AFCT hrl, as gr i^'A -.—dd, cl, ««J, with /r, Cypr., 
after gr PQ, and most [h Mat, ix. 12 — xi. 16]. 

X. I. sicut sol (— erat). So gg\ all gr, us o ^Xtos (oot ?v) : — AF, &c., cl, and pr, erat ut sol. 

ib. 5. anguelus {quern). So with gg, Tdd, cl ; gr, 6 ayyt\o<s ov : — AFC, pr, angelum {quern). 

lb. 8. {loquentem mecum) + dicentem. So with gg, A, also {et dicentem) A'FCTdd, cl ; gr, Xa.kov<ra[y2fieT' 
i/jLOv X«youcra[i/] : — pr, om. 

ib. II. dicit. So with gg, A'FT ; gr P and many mss {Xiyu): — AC, &c., dicunt; gr J^AQ 
\iyov<Tiv : — dd, cl, dixit (no gr) ; pr, ait. 

xi. 8. {corpora eorurn) + iacebunt. So with ^^, dd, cl ; also (after tnagnae) A'CT': — others ins 
variously -^pr, ponet : — AF om ; with nearly all gr (but ^{', eo-rai ; some mss, eao-ct, or pi^u). 

xii. I. apparuit. So with gg, FCTdd, cl : — A, paruit : — /4 pr, uisum est ; gr, &4'^r]. 

ib. g. qui seducit. So with gg, FCTdd, cl ; gr, 6 irXavuii' : — A, A, qui seducet ; pr, qui seducebat. 
^ ih. i"]. testimonium ihlt. So with gg, AFdd; gr K'ACPQ, &c. (but i^, r. Oeov: — CT, cl, pr, test, 
ihu + xpi. 

ib. 18. et stetit .... maris. So with gg, all vg ; and so gr XAC, mss 87 92, {ia-raOri) : — pr om ver. 
Of gr, PQ and nearly all mss, io-rdOrjv (but no lat, steti). 

xiii. I. nomina. So with gg, AC, cl ; gr AQ, most mss, ovo/xara : — FTdd, pr, nomen; with gr i^CP 
some mss, ovo/io. 

ib. 12. {plaga mortis) + na^. So D with ^f^ (jij/ lat) ; and gr J^CQ, most mss : — AF, &c., cl, and 
pr, om eius ; so gr P, and a few mss, om avTov ; A om Oavarov but retains avrov. 

ib. 14. seducit. So with gg, FCTdd; all gr, ■TrXava : — A, seducet ; pr (so cl), seduxit. 

ib. 15. facial. So with gg, ACT, cl ; gr APQ, &c., iroiria-y : — Fdd, faciei ; gr Ji^ and some, 7roii;<ret 
(gr C om sentence) : — pr, faceret. — Nearly all lat {gg pr, FCTdd, cl) ins ut after the verb ; and SO gr 
AP and some mss, Iva : — but A (vg) om ut ; and so gr J^Q and most mss. 

ib. ib. occidatur. So with gg, FCTdd; pr, occideretur : — but A, cl, occidantur; with gr (mss and 
nearly all mss) a.TtoKTa.vBuimv (but mss, 14 92, dTroKTav^^vai ; and so Iren. (lat), occidi). 

ib. 17. nisi qui habet. So with gg, A'FCTdd, cl ; and so pr, nisi habens; gr, el /xrj 6 ixiav. — A, 
nisi quis habet. 

xiv. 4. ex hominibus. So gg, and A' cl; gr, diro twv avOpijsTraiv (but C om) : — AFCTdd, pr, ex omnibus 
(no gr). 

ib. II. ascendet. So with gg, CTdd, cl : — AF, m pr, ascendil ; all gr, avafiaivu. 

ib. 13. sequuntur (or secu — ). So with gg, m, AF, &c., cl : — pr, comitanlur. All gr, a.Ko\ovBii. 

ib. ib. illos. So gg, with AFCT, cl : — dd, m pr, eos. All gr, fter' avrwi. 

ib. 15. alter {ang.). So with ^^g, KFCTdd: — alius, c\, pr. All gr, aXXos. 

ib. 1 6. messa est terra. So with gg, A (cl, pr, demessa est terra) ; all gr, iGtpLvOrj ■^ yfj : — Fdd, messuit 
terram ; CT, messa est lerram ; h, demessus est terram. 

ib. 18. — exiuit. So gg, with AFCT ; and gr A : — h ins, with cl, and dd {exiit) \_pr hiaf] ; and so 
gr ^^CPQ, mss, cfiyX^ev. 

XV. 4. magnificabit nomen. So gg, with CT, cl, &c. ; AF, magnificauit nomen ; dd, del {pr h, dabit) 
claritatem {h, gloriam) nomini. All gr, 8o^do-et (or — 19) to ovop-a. 

ib. ib. solus plus + es. So with A'Fdd, cl ; also gg {solus sanctus + es) ; few gr mss, et : — ACT, pr, 
om es, with all gr mss and most mss. See farther on these words, p. ccxlvi infr. \h def, xvi. 5 to end]. 

xvi. 8. in sole. So gg {sol) : — all vg, cl, in solem ; pr, super solem ; gr, enl t. ■^Xioi'. 

xvii. 8. bestia quam. So with gg, Fdd, cl : — bestiam quam, ACT, pr; gr, to 6y\pi.ov o. 

ib. 12. accipient. So with gg, Cdd, cl : — AFT, pr, accipiunt (all gr, Xa/t^dvovo-iv). 

ib. 15. aquae quae. So D (txt), (but D (mg) aquae quas) ; and so gg, dd, and cl : — AFCT, pr,. 
aquas quas. Gr, to. vhara. a. 

xviii. I. a gloria. So with gg, FCTdd, cl ; gr, ck t^s Sdfvs :— A om prep., as also pr {claritate). 

ib. 4. ut non. So gg {sol) :— AF, cl, and m, ut ne (gr, Ivo. p.'^) ; CTdd, et ne ; pr, ne only. 


Apoc. xviii. 8. qui iudicat. So with gg, m (gr ij', few mss, o Kpii/o))/) : — AF, pr, qui iudicauit 
(CTdd, cl, iudicabit), gr i^ACPQ, most, o Kptvai. — D adds earn, and so m, pr\ AFdd, cl, il/am ; g, de ilia. 
Gr, avrqv, 

ib. 10. (after ««?Vaj<'>) magna. So ^^: — AF, &c., cl, ilia magna {pr, ilia only) ; gr, 17 ttoXis fj fiiydX-q. 
ib. ib. iudicium suum. So gg {eius) : — AF, &c., cl, and pr, tuum ; all gr, 17 xpto-is crou. 
2"5. 17. omnis qui in locum, nauigat. So Ydd, and C {nauigauit) T ( — 5//); also gg (but ?«f z7/«»? 
before loc, and writes nauigabat) ; gr i^ACQ, irSs o eirt tottov TrXeui/ ; to like effect. A, omnes qui . . . 
nauigant : — cl (some mss), subst. lacum for loc. (else as DF) ; no gr : — pr, omnis super mare nauigans ; 
to like effect gr P, and some mss, 6 eirl tSv ttXoiW ttXcW.' No lat follows the reading of ms i, 6 IttI 
T. irX. 6 o/AtXos. 

ib. 20. fa«f/?' apostoli. So with ^^, CTdd, cl ; and gr C, few mss (01 aywi dTrdo-ToXoi) : — AF, pr, 
sancli + ei ; gr ^APQ, most, 01 ay. Koi oi uTrocrT. 

ib. 21. (before non inuenietur) ultra. So ^^f; also AF, &c., cl, ultra iam : — pr, amplius. All gr, In. 
ib. 23. ueneficiis. So with ^^, YCdd, cl; gr, <^ap/AaK[6]ia : — AT, beneficiis; pr, maleficiis. 
xix. 8. bissum splendidum ei mundum. So {om et) gg {byssinum splendidum mundum) : — pr, byssinum 
candidum mundum : — AF, byssinum splendens candidum ; gr XAP, Pvcra-ivov Xa/j.Trpbi' Ka6ap6v (but Q, 
X. Kol K.) : — dd, cl, byssino splendenti {et) candido {dd om et) ; CT, byssino splendens. candido. 

ib. II. fidelis et uerax uocatur. So gg (but uerus) ; gr, AcaXov/xei/os Tritrros /cal dXiy^ivds : — -/r, Cypr., 
uocdbaiur fidelis et uerus ; </(5?, cl, uocabatur fid. et uerax. — ACT, uocdbatur fid. et uerax uocatur'^ (and so F, 
but uocatur bis). 

ib. 15. acutus. So with gg, AFCTdd, and Iren. (lat) ; gr SAP, some mss, 6$ila -.—pr, with some vg, 
cl (so Tert., Cypr-), utrumque (or (cl) ex uiraque parte) acutus ; with gr Q and many mss, Sioro/ios dfeia. 
ib. 20. c«OT z7/a [sc, bestid\. So with ^^, </</ (cl, c. ea) : — cum illo, AFCT, pr. All gr, yuer' airov 
[so., ^ijptou]. 

XX. 8. et congregauit. So with ^^, AF: — dd, cl, — bit; (gr, (rwayayeii', — Hier., uf congreget); Aug., 
«/ trahet. [Aug. replaces /r, xx. i — xxi. 5 ; see above in Subsect. i, p. ccxl.] 

ib. q. circuerunt. So (circuierunt) gg, FCTdd, cl ; A, circumierunt \ — Aug., cinxerunt. All gr, 
iKVKKfMuav (or eKvAcXtocrav). 

«J. zS. ^f caelo a deo. So C, gg; with gr Q, and many: — AFT, cl, a deo de caelo ; with gr S'P and 
many : — Aug., de caelo only; with gr A, mss 12 18 79 : — dd (no gr) a deo only [Ji^ om largely here]. 
Cp. xxi. 2, 10 infr. 

lb. II. a cuius aspectu. So with ^^, F: — ACTdd, cl, conspectu: — kn%., facie. All gr, oxi airor. 

ib. ib. in eis. So D (txt) (^j-, in illis); but ai z7/z> D (interl.); and so AFCdd, ab eis ; gr, aurots 
only, and so T, cl, eis (without prep.) :— Aug., eorum (no gr). 

xxi. 8. id{u)latris {p). So gg {ydoL, as also C), with AFCT: — dd, cl, idololatris; pr, his qui idolis 
seruiunt ; m, idolis seruientibus. Gr, etSuXoXoTpats. 

ib. 11, —et (before lumen). So with gg, AFCT; also gr i^APQ, many mss, om koX before o ^oicrrrip : — 
but dd, cl, et lumen ; pr, et quod inluminat ; gr (many mss), xai o ^wcrTrfp. 

ib. 12. habens^'^^ xii portas. So with gg, AFCT; gr i^'APQ, and most, exo^""" [w. 10, 11, 
ciuitatem .... habeniem = rrp/ ttoXiv .... ex°^'''""' (note anacoluthon)] : — dd, cl, habentem ; a few gr mss, 
ex(»"'''i-v \y( tx°^'''"'^ by lapse] : — pr alone, qui habet [sc, mums'], but no gr has (tcixos) ex°''-^ 

?'5. ?"i. [a«j' =] angelos. So with ^^, T<f(/, cl : — AC, pr, angulos, against all gr (F om et in portis 
xii ang.). 

ib. ib. quae sunt nomina. So with gg, AF, &c., cl ; gr AQ, some mss, a eo-nv [ra] ovd/xara ; — pr om ; 
of gr, J^P, many mss, om to ovo/xaTa (but no gr om & ia-riv). 

ib. 16. (after longuitudo eius) — est. So C, and gg; with all gr : — but KFTdd, cl, pr, + est. 

' Prof. Nestle has ingeniously conjectured, 6 Itn tov ttovtov irXeW. 

' Orig., In loann. (11. 4), cites this verse on Joh. i. 4, and says iticttos (caXov/ieKo? koi dXij^tvos KaXeirat. 
Hence apparently the interpolation in ACT. 

^ The gr is exovcra Tetx°5 .... expva-a irvXS>va<s. D and AF disguise the irregularity of the gr by trans- 
lating £xov(ra O as ei habebai ; lyfivaa. <", habens. 


Apoc. xxii. 2 {per menses) singulos reddens. So with gg, dd, cl ; gr, Kara /i^va l/cao-Tov diroSiSovs, 
or —ovv (A) :— AF, fz'w^a/a reddentia ; CT, singulos reddentia -.—Mpr, singulos reddentes. 

ib. 6. spu {profetarum). So j?-^ (sc, spiritu) :— but «?</, cl, spirituum ; as all gr, tuv Trfeu/i.aTwv tmv 
irpo^ijToJi/ (F, /r, spiritum, probably = spirituum) ; A cot, and j«3j/. omnipotens ; CT, omnipotens spiritus. 

lb. II. iusiitiam facial adhuc. So with ^^, AFCT(/(^; gr XAQ, and most, liKaio(TvvT]v iroti/o-aro) 
€Tt :— some vg, cl, iustificetur ; gr (mss 38 79), SiKatw^i;™ In : pr alone, iustiora facial (without adhuc). 

ib. 13. («^(?) + sum (A ^/ U))- So with gg, Tdd ; no gr (?) :— AFC, &c., om ; with gr ^_AQ, and most. 

ih. 15. uenifici. So {uenef.) with ^^, AF, &c., cl ; all gr, ^ap/iaxoi: — mpr, malefici; but /r (not m) 
ins uenef. at end of list of the excluded. 

ih. lb. inpudici. So gg, and [impud.) KQJYdd, cl ; gr, ol iropvoL (F, impudicitiae) -.—pr, forntcarii; 
m, adulteri. 

ib. 17. + «/ (before qui silit). So with gg, YQdd ; all gr, xat 6 Sn/rtli' : — om el, AT, /r. 

«:j. 18. conlestor. So with ^^, KYQ.dd (T oot vv. 18-21), cl -.—m pr, lestor. Of gr, KAQ, most mss 
fiapTvpS) ; some, fiaprvpofiai. 

Subsection hi. — Z? m/>^ /r (with or without A), against gg. 

i. 4. (/ajt) a deo . . . qui est. So D with /r {sol lat) ; gr Q and many mss, atro t. 6eov &v : — gg A, 
AF and all vg (cl), ab eo qui est ; gr ^^ACP, many mss, airo 6 a>v (one or two mss, an-o rov 6 &v). D adds, 
patre (but not so pr). 

ib. 5. — nos^^l So pr: — gg h, and all lat else ins ; of gr, all exc. ^< (but )X supplies). 

ib. 7. confixerunt. So h pr: — gg, all vg exc. D, pupugerunt ; gr, eieKevTija-av. 

ib. 9. {palien/ia) in xpo ihu. So h {pr, in ihiTxpo ; and so 1^), with hrl and some vg, and cl ; and 
so gr Q and most mss : — but gg with KYCTdd, in ihu ; and so gr XCP, ms 38 (gr A, ei' f^picn^). 

ih. ib. testimonium) ihu xpi. So pr, some vg ; with gr ^^'Q, &c. : — but gg h, and AF, &c., cl, om 
xpi, with gr i^ACP, and a few mss. 

ib. 20. {candelabra) uii {aeclessiae). So h, pr ; and gr mss 7 97 : — all lat else, and gr, uii, uii. 
\h hiat, ii. i — viii. 7]. 

ii. 5. {uenio) + cito. So pr ; with gr Q and most (+ Ta^u')) (but pr writes ueniam, against all lat else ; 
as gr, lpxojx.0.1) : — gg with nearly all vg else {KYCYdd, &c.), om cito ; as gr XACB. Moreover, gg ins 
tibi (with pr and all lat exc. D) ; and so all gr, + a-oi (exc. mss 12 96). 

ib. 8. reuixit. So pr {sol) : — gg and all vg, uiuit; gr, €^r](rev. 

ih. 10. + quosdam {ex uobis). So /r (cl, + aliquos) : — ^^, AFCT(f(/, &c., om quosdam ; and so gr, e^ 
v/tGv only. 

ib. 16. similiter (joined with poenitentiam age). So with /r, Ydd, cl ; and one or two gr mss : — 
but ACT, gg, connect with habes {ixws) of ver. 16 ; and so gr J^ACPQ and most mss {ofnoiuti). P writes, 
op.oiui<s, //.LcrS), but no lat follows it. 

ib. 17. {dabo ''') + ei {calculum). So with pr, F : — ACTdd, cl, gg, illi (gr, avrta, but X, 38 om). 

ib. 18. auricalco. So pr: — A, oricalcho (C, horicalco) ; F, aericalco (T, ericalco); dd, cl, aurickalco; 
gg, eramenlo thurino (gr, xaXKo\i/3av<j)). C/. i. 15, in Subsect. iv. 

ziJ. 20. zezabel. So /r, with CT : — A, hiezabel; Ydd, cl, ^^, iezabel {3x161 so gr). 

iii. 4. ambulauerunt. So pr only; — AF, ambulant: — CTdd, cl, ^j^, ambulabunt; as all gr (irepi- 

2'(5. 16. {sed quia) + zaw. So (perhaps) m pr {sed quoniam) : — AF, &c., dd, cl, gg, sed quia ; as nearly 
all gr (oiVws oTi ; but i^, on ovrtas). 

ib. 18. unge. So pr {ungue) and Cypr. : — all vg else, and gg m, inunge (all gr, ly)(piaa.C), 

ib. 21. in throno . . . in trono. So with pr, throno (bis)), AF, &c., cl : — gg, sede (bis). 

iv. I. (after mecum) — dicens. So pr: — AFdd, cl, ins; as gr J^AQ and many, Xe'yojv, ; J^'P and 
few, Xeyov(ra) ; gg, et dicentem (a few gr mss, koX Xiyovcra, or KciX Xeyov(rr]^) . 

ib. 4. circum amicli. So (as one word) pr, dd, cl : — AFCT, circumamictos {gg, amictos), as all 
gr, Trepi/Se/iXrjiJ.r.vov';. 

ib. 5. throno . . . ante thronum. So with AF, &c., cl, pr {trono . . . in conspeclu Irani) : — but gg, sede 
. . . ante sedem. In every place, gr has Bpovo^, — ov, — ov. 


Apoc. iv. 6. in medio throni. So pr, medio . . . trono : — AF, &c., cl, in medio sedis ; gg om. D om 
et in circuitu throni (or sedds) which all else ins. 

ib. 9. super thronum. Sopr {in trono), with AF, &c., cl : — gg, supra sedem. Gr, «7ri t« dpovi^ (or to5 

ib. 10. in trono .... ante thronum. So pr {in conspeciu troni .... ante tronum), with AF, &c., cl ; 
gg, ante sedem (bis). Gr, IvX tov 6p. . , . evMTrioi' tov 6p. See Note, p. cclviii, at end of this Section. 
V. 6. + in medio^^^ {iu animalium). So pr (but om in medio^^^) : — AF. &c., cl, gg, om ; as gr. 
ib^ 13. — omnia. So pr with all lat om, exc. gg {omnia. Et audiui dicentes) ; with most gr mss :— 
but all gr MSS and some mss, +irovTa (SPQ and a few mss connect with to iv avrols preceding ; A and 
mss I 12, with ^Kovo-a following, and read Xiyovra. Q alone reads irovra. koX iravras.). See notes on 
this verse in next Subsection. 

ib. 14. + uiuentem in saecula saeculorum. So pr, few vg, cl (no gr) : — but AFCTdd hrl om. 
vi. I, 2. ueni et uide {et ecce). So with/r, FCTdd, &c. ; as gr Q and many : — but A and some vg, 
ueni, et uidi {et ecce) ; as gr AGP, and some mss : — gg, and cl, ueni et uide et uidi {et ecce) ; with gr J< 
(tlSov, i^P ; Ihov, AC, 7 26). 

ib. 7 (and 8). ueni et uide (8) et uidi. So pr; as gr ^ and some mss, ep^o" «■<"■ '8^ k"' — tSov: 
gg om et uidi, with CTdd, cl ; as gr Q and many: — AF om et uide, with gr AC? and mss 7 28 36 92. 
(Note that D wrongly ins et before ueni; also that/r {sol) om et ecce.) 

ib. 8. {nomen) + erat illi. So pr {n. ei erat): — gg, with AF, &c., cl, &c., om erat; as gr. 
ib. 9. altare + dei. Similarly pr {ara dei), with Cypr., &c. ; but no gr : — AF and all vg, gg, om dei. 
viii. 9. {tertia pars)piscium. So /r only (D adds in mari quae habebat animas). — Yox piscium, AFCTdd, 
cl, write creaturae {+ eorum, cl) quae hab. an., to which CTdd, cl (not AF) add in mari; gg subst eorum 
quae in mari creata sunt quae habent an. ; h, animalium quae erat in mari. Of gr, nearly all write tuJi' 
KTicr/JUXTtov tS)V iv r-^ OaXdcriTTg to i^^ovra i^u^os ; but mss I and 12 om r. iv t. 6aXdix(r'j(i (as vg AF). 
ib. ib. periit. So pr: — AF and all vg, interiit, with gg h. All gr, Zit<^&dp-r]\_<To.v~\. 

ix. 3. scorpiones. So pr, with AF, &c., cl;— .gg'^, scorpii. — But (ver. s) D has scorpionis (genit.) 
and /r, scorpionum : — but^^, KFdd, scorpii; {h, excorpio (nominat.). Ail gr, a-Koptnoi, o-Kop-irCov. 

ib. 5. cruciarentur. So with h pr, AFCTdd; as gr, Pa<ravia-6i^<rovTai (J^AP 1 12 36 38), or — O&a-iv 
(Q and most) ; gg, crucientur : — some vg, cl, cruciarent (as gr ms 7, Pavavla-ioa-iv). 

ib. 6. + et {in diebus). So pr [h Mat'], with FCTdd, &c., cl ; as all gr : — A om et, as also gg. 

ib. II. ebreice. So h {pr, — a/«), and A ( — eicae): — F, hebraeice; CT, {h)ebrayc{a)e ; gg, hebraicae ; 
dd, &c., cl, hebraice. 

ib. 17. {capita) ^ equorum. So pr om : — all vg, and gg, ins equorum ; gr likewise. 

ib. 20. («o«) adorarent. So /r, with FCdd, cl : — AT, ^^, adorent. Of gr, ^^AC, and 736 42, 
Trpoo-KWjjo-ouorti/ ; PQ, ms i, and most, — v»j<r<i)o-tv. 

X. 8. + et {accipe). So pr, with </</, cl, &c.; as gr (few mss) : — AFCT, gg, om with all gr mss and 
most mss. 

xi. 10. qui inhabitant. So /r, with FCT: — gg with A', cl, qui habiiabant super; A, qui habitant 
super; dd, qui inhabitabant super. All gr, tovs toToiKovi'Tay. 

ib. 13. in timore missi. So pr, with F: — but ACT, dd, &c., cl, in timorem ; gg has conterriti. All 
gr, Sficjio^oi. 

ib. 15. regnabit. So pr, with CTdd, &c., cl ; as gr mss and most mss, /iaa-iXevaei : — but AF, with 
gg, regnauit (no gr). Many gr mss, /Saa-iXevei (but no lat, regnat). 

[xii. 6.' habebat. So h, few vg, cl, gr ms 38, eix«v :— /r with gg, AFCTdd, habet; with gr mss 
and nearly all, cx^i. 

ib. 10.' qui accus\f\at. So h: — pr with jgg', all vg, qui accusabat. All gr, 6 KaTijyop<Si/.j 

xiii. 16. notam. D (mg). So ^r : — D (txt), carecterem, and ^^g' {caracterem) ; AF, caracter; dd, &c., 
cl, characterem ; all gr, y^dpayfia. — So all likewise in ver. 1 7. 

' Note that in these two places, xii. 6 and 10, ^r sides with gg, against h and D. 

2 H 


Apoc. xiii. 17. (after f^ar.) nominis. So /r (and Iren.), FCT, with gr C {rov ovofAaroi) ; A, nomine:— 
dd, cl, and gg, aut nomen ; so gr J*, ms 38 (^ to ovo/xo) : — other vg, «<?««« only; most gr (APQ and 
mss) TO )(a.p. TO ovofxa. 

xiv. 4. {hh^ + j««/W (^^2' secuntur). So /r, with F, &c. ; gr Q, &c., eto-tv :— A hrl om sunt; CTdd, 
cl, om sunt qui, likewise gg ; and so gr ACP, ovtol oi olko\ov6ovvtk (also Xj but om oi). 

ib. 7. — et (before mare). So pr, F hrl, cl ; gr ms 36 -.—ACTdd, gg; gr mss, most mss, m. 

tb. 1 2. /5<2«f (patieniia). So /?- (^a«c + «/) : — all vg, and g, hie ; as all gr, S8e. 

z'(5. 20. {stadia) -Idc- So /r, «?'& </f, h, m-d-c; with AF and all vg (otz7/« sexcenta; A, sescenta) ; 
also nearly all gr, xiWcov HaKoo-tW (but i^, ms 26, x- StaKoo-iW) ; — gg, mille quingenlis. 

XV. 4. {solus) pius. So /r, and AF, &c., cl ; and so gr (oo-ios, as J^ACP^mss i 28 36 38 79 :— 
gg, sanctus; and so gr (aycos, as Q and most) ; dd, sanctus et pius \_h, solus sts dne ... .J. 

ib. s- + et {ecce). So h pr, with MYCTdd, &c., cl :— A om et : gg ins et bnt om ecce, and so all gr 
read /cat without iSov ; [h hiat after qui eras, to end of Book]. 

xvii. 4. ab\_h']ominationum. So pr, with ACTdd; all gr, /gSeXvy/iaTwi/ :— F, cl, abominatione ; gg, 
abhominationibus ; Cypr., exsecrationum. 

ib. 13. tradent bestiae. So (but transp.) /r (D /r also habebunt), with FCTdd, &c., cl :— A, tradunt 
{gg, Iren., rfa«/); gr J^APQ, many mss, SiBoao-iv (18 79, Swo-ovo-tv; 33, St.aB(!)(rova-tv). 

ib. 17. ^«0(f placitum est illi. So cl, and so {illi plac. est) pr, with AFCTdd; gr, t^v yva/i^ 
avTov : — gg, consilium eius. 

xix. 14. bissum album mundum. So (all exc. D, byssinum) pr, Cypr., and AF dd ; and so CT, cl 
{ins et) in ablat. ;— all gr, ^va-a-ivov \evKov [koi] KaOapov -.—gg {sol), album et purpureum. Cp. note on 
xviii. 12, in Subsect. v. 

ib. 15. calcabit. So pr: — all vg, and gg, calcat; as all gr, iraTet. 

ib. 16. (before scriptum) + nomen. So pr, and Cypr.; with all gr:— all vg. and gg, scriptum only. 
(But pr with all else passes by nouum, which D further adds.) 

XX. 4. sedentes. So Aug. : — all vg, and gg, sederunt ; gr, iKoBurav. 

ib. 13, 14. in/emus (bis). So Aug., with dd, cl : — AT, inferus (bis), F, inferus, in/emus (14); 
C om ver. 13 ; writes inferus in ver. 14 ; gg and w, infernus (13), inferus (14). All gr, o a8i;s. 

z?. 13. {mortuos'-'^^) — suos. So Aug., with AFT (C om ver.) :—</</, cl, and gg, + jmm. 

ih. 14. (after stagnum ignis^''^) — ^aef raurj secunda est {in) stagnum ignis. So Aug. (alone of lat) ; of 
the rest, gg, with AFCT and others, ins (FCT gg om in) ; dd, &c., and cl., ins only Aa«c est mors sec. 
Of gr, all MSS ins ovtos o o SevT«pos, 17 Xifuif] Tov Tru/)os ; of mss, I and a few ow? the whole ; 
many others om only 17 Xt/x;'^ t. irupos. 

xxi. 3. habitahit. So Aug., with CTdd, cl ; as nearly all gr, a-Krivuxrei. : — A, habitauit, and so gg; 
with gr S (eo-K>?va)o-ev) ; F, habitat (no gr). (D alone om et before verb.) 

ib. 6. {aquae) uitae. So /r, with Tdd, cl ; as all gr, t^s tfari% : — AFC, and gg, uiuae. — So also 
xxii. I. 

ib. 8. fornicariis. So pr: — all vg, fornicatoribus ; gg om. All gr, jropvois. 

ib. 1 1 . {simile) + est. So pr : — all vg om est, and also gg ; as all gr. 

ib. 18. ex auro mundo. So pr, and dd: — AFCT om ex: — some vg, and cl, aurum mundum; gg, 
aurum purum ; with all gr {xpva-lov KaOapov). 

ib. ib. similis {sc, ciuitas). So pr: — AFCT, and cl, also gg, simile ; dd, simili {sc, auro) {sc, aurum). 
Of gr, all MSS, 0/i.oLov (sc, xp""''*"'), and so most mss ; but a few mss bfioia (sc, rj iroXis). 

ib. 27. et faciens. So pr, with FCTdd; as gr, koX 6 jroiulv : — A, faciens {om et): — c\, faciens et; 
gg, et quod facit ; with gr PQ, &c., jroiouv. 

xxii. 2. adferens. So /r with F, and afferens ACTdd, cl : — gg, faciens ; gr, iroioSi' (or — Siv). 

ih. 4. {nomen . . .) + scriptum. So pr only (no gr) : — against all vg, and gg. — D adds farther, + erit 
but not pr. 

ib. 8. qui .... ostendit. So /r only : — AFCdd, cl, and gg, qui .... ostendebat (T, adnuntiabat) ; 

gr, TOV 8«t/CI'UI'T0S. 

i'3. 1 1 . ^/ iustus. So FCT(/<f [A Aia/], /r {iustus autem) : — some vg, cl, gg, et qui iustus est. 


Subsection iv. — D with gg pr [and h) ; with or without Vulg. 

Apoc. i. 6. {fecit) nos regnum el sacerdotes. So ggpr (and Tert.), with dd, &c., cl ; as gr K'l 80 99, 
^/xos /Soo-iXetov Ktti Ujotis, — also (but om koC) ^A ; similarly Q (jSao-iXeioi/) : — but AFCT, h, nostrum regnum 
sacerdotes; as gr C, ^/tfiv ^ao-iXeiav le/j. — P writes j8oo-iX«is Kai, with 1 28 36 and others; a few, 
Uparcv/xa ; but no lat follows either of these variants. 

ih. 13. filio. So gghpr, with A'FTdd, &c., cl (C, ///') ; as gr ACP and most (viu) :— A {sol), 
filium ; as gr ^Q (vtoV). 

j'J. 15. auricalco. So ^^ (A, aurocalco), pr {\ libani), also aurichalco, dd, &c., cl; — AC, orichalco; 
FT, {a)ericalco. All gr, xaXxoXi^ai/o), and so Iren. (lat), chakolibano. See last Subsect., under ii. 18. 

iS. 19. «/ (^«a« f««/). So gg h pr, with FCT(f</, &c., and cl ; so too all gr, Kai:— A {sol) om et. 

ib. 20. stellae. So gg pr, and all vg : — exc. A, sigilla (by lapse). 

ii. 19. (after patientiam) — tuam. So gg pr, with QTidd, &c. ; as gr X 49 om <rov: — AF, &c., cl, 
with gr ACPQ and most, ins. 

ib. 20. + multa. 5o pr {gg, multum); as mss 28 73 79, TroXXa (X> 12 17 36 43, iroXv: — but 
AFCT(/(/, &c., oz« ; as gr ACPQ and nearly all : — also cl and a few y%,^ pauca, with oXiya of ms i. 

iv. 2. (before fui statim) — et. So (but transp.) ggpr, with AFCT ; as gr 1?AQ, &c. : — dd, &c., 
cl, + «/ {statim fui) ; as P, and some mss. (D begins the verse, /ot/ haec fui statim ; see in Subsect. vi.) 

«■&. 9. + uiuenti in saecula saeculorum. So gg {qui uiuit) pr, FCTdd, &c., cl ; and all gr : — A sol om. 

ib. II, dne ds noster. So ggpr, FCTdd, &c., cl, with gr P and some mss {KvpK 6 6ios ^/xlov) : — 
but A ins et before ds; with gr ^^AQ, and most (6 KvpLos koI 6 6s rjixZv), 

V. I. in dextera. So ggpr, FCT, cl : — Add, in dexteram ; gr, iirl rriv Seiidv. 

ib. 7. (before de dextera) + librum. So gg pr, and A'CT ; with gr mss 1 (mg) 7 36 {to /St^SXtoc) ; 
also (after in throno) Fdd, cl : — A om, with all gr else. 

ib. ID. fecisti nos. So gg pr, FTdd, &c., and Cypr., cl ; with (.-•) no gr : — AC (and some other vg), 
eos : — all gr (P Mat), avTous. 

ib. 13. et in mari. So ggpr, with gr Kj «•' t^J 6aXacr<r}j ; other gr, en-i t^s flaXao-o-j/s, or — -qv) : — 
AFCTdd, cl, et quae sunt in mari; so gr KAPQ and many add [a] etrriv. 

2i. ib. quae in eis sunt. So gg, et quae in illis sunt omnia ; pr, et quaecumque sunt in eis ; as gr, koX 
TO ev auTots [irai'To] : — AF, et quae in ea ; CT, cl, et quae in eo ; dd, et quae sunt in aere. 

ib. ib. sedenti (connected with dicentes preceding). So pr (and so gg, ei qui sedet), with F : — 
ACTdd, &c., cl, connect with benedictio following. See on this verse in preceding Subsection. 

vi. I. ueni et uide. See in preceding Subsection. 

ib. 3. ueni et uide. So ggpr, with T'dd, cl ; as gr }^ and 34 35 39, &c. : — but AFCT om et uide; 
as gr ACPQ, most (epx°^ only). 

tb. 6. denario + uno. So ^^>r (but D/r, bis; gg only after denario^^^): — AF, &c., cl, om (bis); 
with all gr. 

tb. ib. ne {lesseris). So {laeseris) ggpr, with FCTdd, cl ; as gr (ft^ dSiKjjo-ijs) : — A {sol) nee. 

ib. 8. infernus. So gg pr, with FT, cl : — ACdd, inferus ; gr, o ^8ijs. 

ib. 9. — propter {h&iore testimonium). So gg {pr, martyrium), with CT; as gr A om Sid: — AFdd, 
&c., cl, ins propter; with all gr else (Sta t. ixaprvpiav). 

ib. 10. in terra. So gg {pr, in terris), as T, cl (F, terra without prep.) : — Add, super terram, with all 
gr, Itn T^s yrj's. 

ib. 13. (after stellae) — caeli. So ggpr, with F, &c., cl (but gg, cl, add de caelo) : — ACTdd, &c. 
ins ; and so gr (tov ovpavov, but A, t. ^eov). 

vii. 14. (before iu scis) D (interl.) </««. So (before or after) ggpr, with some vg ; as gr A and 
ms I ((cv/ji«) : — AFCTdd, cl, rf«« mi; as gr KCPQ and most {KvpU p.ov). 

tb. ib. Candidas fecerunt. So ggpr (Tert., candidauerunt) : — KFCTdd (and all vg), cl, dealbauerunt. 
All gr, iXevKavav. 

viii. 5. (after motus) — magnus. So ggpr, and AFCT; as all gr: — rf(/, &c., cl, a(^<^ magnus.^ 

' Tisch. wrongly makes A ins magnus. 
2 H 2 


Apoc. ix. 19. nam caudae. So gg pr, with FCTdd, cl ; as all gr {at yap ovpaC) : — A, nam el caudae. 
X. 4. (after dicentem) — mihi. So gg pr, with AFCT, &c. ; as all gr :— but dd, cl, + mihi. 
ib. 8. et uocem audiui .... iterum loquentem. So gg {audiuiiterum uocem .... loquentem), pr, with cl 
[et audiui uocem . . . iterum loquentem ; with gr ms 7 (xai y^Kovira (fxavriv . . . ttoXiv XaXoStrav) : — AFCTdd, 
&c., et uox quam audiui . . . iterum loquentem ; as gr in general (xai ■^ ^u>vri rjv ^Kova-a ....). 

xi, 19. (before fulgora) + tonitrua et. So {et tonitrua) gg h (after fulg.), pr (after «of«) ; most gr, 
Kai ppovTai before or after k. ^tavaC : — but AF, all vg, om tonitrua. 

xii. 10. {uocem) de caelo. So gg pr; as gr ms 95 (ck t. ovpavov) : — AFCdd and all vg (exc. T, which 
om), cl, and ^, z» caelo ; as all gr else (iv t. ouparaj). 

2'3. tb. di nostri (bis). So gg h pr, with FCTdd, &c., cl ; all gr, r. Oeov [r)fi.S>v] :— A (w/), dni nostri. 
ib. 13. (after in terram) — et. So gg pr, with MFCTdd, cl ; as all gr :— A (jo/) ins et. 
xiii. I. {ascendentem) habentem. So (oot e/) ^^ pr, as FCT</(/, &c., cl ; with all gr (ex*""' or — "") '■ — 
A prefixes et. 

ib. 2. (after uirtutem suam) + et sedem suam. So gg (similarly pr, et tronum suum); with all gr, 
Kal T. Opovov avTov : — AFCTdd, &c., and cl., om. 

ib. ID. qui in captiuitatem duxerit. So Tdd, and a few vg, cl; and so (nearly) ^^g^, si quis in captiui- 
tatem duxerit, and similarly pr, qui captiuum duxerit; with gr mss 33 35 87, tins [ets] aix/xaXma-Cav 
airayei : — AFC tf« duxerit ; with all gr MSS and a few mss. 

ib. ib. in captiuitatem cadet [corr., uadet\ So CTdd, cl, and gg {pr, et ipse capietur) : — A, uadit in 
captiuitatem, also {transp.) F; gr A, mss 33 35 87, cts otx/taXoicrtciv virdyu {cp. xvii. ii); ^^CPQ and 
some mss om the second ek alxp-. 

ib. 15. {facial) ut quicumque. So (z'«j a/) CT, cl, and gg {pr, faceret ut qui) ; F and dd {faciei ut) ; 
as gr AP (iVa) : — but A om ut, with XQ> &c. For the verb, APQ and most, write TrotijoT;, H and a few, 
irotjjo-ei. (No lat repeats ut before occida{n)tur ; as some gr, Xva.) 

xiv. 5. (at end) — ante thronum dei. So gg pr, with AFCT, &c. ; as all gr : — dd, &c., cl, ins. 
ib. 8. {a uino) irae {fornicationis). So gg pr, with ACTdd, Sec, cl ; as all gr MSS and most mss 
(t. dvp-ov) : — F, &c., m, om irae ; as gr mss i 96. 

ib. 13. dicentem + »zz'.4z'. So ^^/r and m, as </(/, and cl, with gr mss i 28 36 38 49 79 91 96 : — 
AFCT om, as all gr mss and most mss. 

ib. ib. + ad eum {uoce magna). So gg and {ad ilium) h \^pr hiat'\), with {uoce magna ad eum) Aldd, 
cl : — AFCT om ad eum : — all gr, i<l>(ovr]a-ev . . . t<3 l^oi'Tt. [^pr om the latter part of ver., after ignem,^ 

XV. 6. (before plagas) + ««. So ^^g- (A), and pr {cum uii plagis), with FCTdd, &c., cl, as all gr: — 
A om {sol). 

XV. 6. {uesiiti) lintiamine. Similat^ly gg {linlAeamen), h {linteamina), also pr {linea), cl, /2««; as gr 
P, &c., Xivov {a, Xtvous, Q, kivovv): — but AFCTi^i^, &c., lapide, as gr AC, mss 38' 48 90. 

ib. 7. unum (sc, animal). So gg pr, with rf(/, cl, as gr Iv {tjj>av) ; — AFCT, unus (as also h). 
xvi. 2. ^«2' adorant. So ^^ /r, as gr, tovs wpoo-Kvi'otii'Tos (A, adorantibus) : — AFCT, </</, &c., cl., 
qui adorauerunt. 

ib. 3. factum est sanguis. So ^^ h pr, Cdd: — AFT, c\,factus est sang. All gr, cycVero. 
xvii. 7. {bestiae) quae portal . . . quae habet. So gg pr, with A'Tdd, cl : — AFC, ^«a« . . . qui. All 
gr, TOV Orjpiov . . . T. jSao-Tci^ovTOS, T. ex°''''"°S. 

z'3. 8. mirabuntur. So ^^ (^r, admirabuntur), with CTdd, &c., cl ; so (fut.) all gr, ^av/xao-ovTat, 
Ji^Q, &c. ; — atrBrjcrovrai, AP : — but AF, — abantur (no gr). 

ib. ib. {bestiam) quae erat. So gg pr, with FTdd, cl ; gr J4AP, ms i and some, to Orjplov on [o, n .?] 
rjv : — AC, quia erat ; gr Q and most, ori rjv ro Orjpiov. (No vg recognizes Kal irapecrTat, which nearly all 
gr add at end (J^' and a few, koI irdp^a-Tiv) ; gg, et aduenit ; pr, et uentura est). 

ib. 16. cornua . . . et bestiam. So ggpr, AFCTdd, &c. ; nearly all gr (xat to 6-i]piov) : — cl (with 
some vg), in bestia. 

xviii. 3. (before quia) — et. So ggpr, FCdd, cl : — AT ins; no gr. 

ib. 8. ^«o(f {fortis est). So D (txt) ; (interl.) quia, with gg pr {m, quoniam), A and all vg, and cl ; 
as gr, ort. 


Apoc. xix. 2 1. {de ore) eius. So ggpr:—MCTdd, &c., cl, ipsius ; all gr, avrov. 
XX. 7. f/ f«w. So ggpr, FCTdd, cl ; gr, koX orav :— A (w/), «rf cum. 
ib. 8. «j;?3?/. So Aug., and cl (also CTdd, gg, exiet); all gr, e^eXevVerat ;— but AF, exiuit. 
xxi. 2. (after et) — ego ioannes. So gg Aug. ow, with KFCTdd, nearly all vg, as all gr : — a few, 
and cl, ins. 

ib. 4. (before omnem lacrimam) — ds. So g?' Aug., with gr i^PQ and most : — KYCVdd, &c., cl 
/«f deus, with gr A, ms i, and a few (0 6s). 

ib. ib. quia prima. So Tdd, &c., cl, also (^««'a priora) Aug., and to like effect {prislina enim) gg; 
with gr i^Q and most (oTi.ra vp&Ta) :' — AFCT, quae prima, and so gr AP ow on. 

ib. 6. factum est. So gg pr, with A, cl and all vg, as two gr mss (41 94), yiyovt: — Iran, (lat), 
facta sunt, as gr A^^', yiyovav (also ms 38, ■yeydvocrtv) : — all gr else, yeyova (no lat). 

ib. 12. nomina scripta. So gg pr, with F, as gr J^ {6v6iJuiTayeypaiJ.[t,eva) : — Add, &c., cl, inscripta, 
as nearly all gr else («7rty€ypojii/*£va, — or eyyeyp). 

ib. 13. Of the four cardinal points, all lat (as nearly all gr)," place {i) ab orient., (2) ab aquil. 
But D places (3) ab austr., (4) ab occassu; and so ggpr, with FCTdd, &c., and cl; as gr i^PQ and 
most : — A transp. (3) and (4), with gr A. (For occasu of AFCT, cl ; dd, gg pr, write occidente. 

ib. 14. (before apostolorum) + xii. So gg pr, with FCT, dd, &c., cl ; as all gr : — A {sol vg) om. 
ib. 19. iaspis. So ggpr, and ACTdd, cl : — but F, iaspidis (no gr). 
ib. 20. crisolitus. So gg pr, with A: — F, chrysoliius, dd, cl. — /z'M«f ; gr, xpi'o'O'^'^os. 
?'3. ib. iacintus. So pr {gg, iacinctus); also A, iacinthus; Y,yacintus; T , yacinctus : — C, hyacintus ; 
dd, cl, hyacinthus ; gr, vukiv^os. 

z'i. ib. amelitus (corr., ametistus). So ^^/r, with F : — amethyslus. Add, Sec. ( — tisthus, C ; — thistus, 
cl) ; gr, d/xe'^vcTTos (a few, d/tcfluo-os). 

xxii. 14. per portas. So gg pr, with T^c^, cl : — AFC, /i?r^?f ; as gr, tois TruXScrti'. 
z'i. 19. dempserit. So ggpr: — AFCdd, cl, deminuerit \m, abstuleril) ; as gr i^A, &c., d^e'Xj; (Q, 
dtj^cXcirai). [T OOT vv. 18-21.] 

ib. 21. (end) — am^n. So ggpr, F ; with gr A ; — ACdd, cl, z'w ; with ^^Q. 

Subsection v. — Z? with some Vulg. against Old- Lat, 

ii. 13. -\- et {in diebus). So AFCT hrl, &c., and cl, with gr AC and ms 21 : — gg pr, om, and dd 
with gr HPQ, and mss. 

ib. ib. (after in diebus) om pron., with AFCT and gr AC : — dd ins quibus, other vg, and cl, illis 
gg, in quibus fuit; pr, illis before diebus ; of gr, Q and most mss, ats ; )H,''?, &c., iv ais; J?, kv raw. 

ib. ib. anlifastis (corr., antifas testis) mei. So F only: — A and all vg, ggpr, antipas testis meus 
with all gr, dvT(e)t'7ros o /ia/orvs jxov. 

ib. 20. permittis. So A'FCTdd, cl; gr, di^eis (a few, d<^^xas) : — A, permittes; gg, dimittis, pr., 
Cypr., sinis. 

ib. 23. z'« morte. So FCTdd, cl ; gr, ev 6avdT<a : — A, zn mortem ; gg, pr, morte. 

ib.ib. {opera) sua. So T, &c., cl ; with gr Q, 38, auroO \)l^ om'\: — hSdd hrl; ggpr, uestra; gr 
S'ACP, &c., V^v. 

ib. 24. + et (caeteris). So hrl, cl ; gr (one ms), kox Xoittois : — AFCT and all lat else om et {pr, 
reliquis) ; and all gr, rots A. 

iii. 3. {ueniam^^^) — ad te. So FCTdd hrl; with gr ACP, mss i 12 28: — A, cl, gg and pr, 
ins ad te ; with gr J^Q, &c. (eiri o-e). 

ib. II. + ecce {uenio). So F(fi/ hrl, cl ; with gr 28 36 79 (cSov) : — ACT and ggpr om; with gr 
MSS and most mss. 

ib. 20. hostium ianuam. So AFCT(/(/, cl ; gr, Tr\v dvpav (bis) ; — gg, ianuam (bis) ; pr, 

ostium (bis). 

' Here gg rather represents ra yap irpSiTa, as read by ms 79. — J^ (by lapse) writes irpo^ara for TrpStra. 
'' A very few gr mss place differently. 


Apoc. iv. 5. procedeba{n)t. So dd, cl ; very few gr, k^eiroptvovTo : — AFCT hrl, gg, procedunt {pr, 
exeunt) ; with most gr, iKTropevovrai. 

ib. 10. procedebant. So A; dd, cl, procidebant : — FCT, procidenl; with all gr {TrefrovvTai) ; gg, 
procedent :—pr (alone), cadebant} 

V. 1 3. — et sub terraim). So F, with gr X and a few : — h.dd, cl, also pr, ins ; and {([uae sub t.) CT j 
gg, subter terram ; gr APQ, uTroKc^To) t. yi}?- 

ib. 14. + in fades suas. So dd, cl : — AFCT om, and gg pr; with all gr. 

vi. I. {ei uidi) quod. So AFCT hrl, cl ; with gr Q and most (oTt) : — but dd, gg, el uidi cum ; 
with gr SACP and a few otc) ; pr, ef cum {om uidi). 

ib. ib. sigillis. So F, cl : — ACTdd, gg, signaculis ; pr, signis. (Note that all through the rest of 
this ch., and in viii. i, o-c^payts is rendered sigillum by A, &c., cl, and^^; /r adheres to signum.) 

ib. 5. ueni et uide et ecce. So Q,'Ydd hrl, cl ; with gr Q, and many {Ipxov k. iSc k. tSou) : — AF, ueni 
et uidi et ecce, with gr ACP and many [ipx^^ ""■'■ ^iSov koI ISov), (but ^^, epx- "• 'Se k. elBov k. i8ov). Of 
vtt, gg om et uide et uidi; /r retains both, but om ecce. Cp. Subsect. iii, on vi. 1, 2, 7, 8. 

ib. 15. et peiris. So Ydd: — A, cl, gg pr, et in petris; all gr, koX eis ras irerpas. 

vii. I. (after uentos) — terrae. So a few vg om ; with gr ms 38 : — but gg pr, and kYC'^dd, with 
nearly all vg, and cl, ins ; as gr (t. y^s). 

ib. 17. ab oculis. So cl ; with some vg gr J^ and some mss, ajro : — AFCTijW, ex; with gr ACPQ 
most mss, €k ; and so/r ; gg, de. 

viii. 3. ut daret de orationibus. So dd, cl : — ACT, and pr, om de; with all gr {Jva Su>o-£i ( — xt) ''""'s 
irpocr£i);(ots) ; g, ut det orationes. (F om, and j«Jj/, ^«aif sunt orationes.) 

ib. 13. z« terra. So FCT</</, cl : — A, super terram, also gg h (all gr, esri t^s y^s) ; //", terram 
(no prep.). 

ix. 4. praeceptum est. So AFCT^rf, cl : — gg pr{^ h), dictum est (gr, ippeOrj). 

ib. 9. (before equorum) + .?/. So CT : — all vg else, and gg h pr, om et ; with all gr. 

ib. 13, 14. audiui uocem unam .... dicentem. So CT(/i^, cl ; most gr, <^<ov^v /Ai'av : — AF, a«(f. ko«ot 
unum .... dicentem ; gg pr, aud. unum .... i/zV. (ow uocem). For dicentem (all lat), i^A have Aeyoira, 
P and many, Xiyovaav, Q and many, AeyovTos. (H om /^t'ai' ex rwv Tea-a-dpmv Kepdrmv.) 

ib. 16. + et {audiui). So C hrl, cl : — AFTdd, &c., cl, and gg pr, om; so all gr mss (and mss ?). 

ib. 18. qui procedebant. So {quae) dd, &c., cl ; gr (mss 28 36 38 79) tSv i.Kiropevop.kvun' : — AFCT 
hrl, qui procedebat {gg, qui procedit) ; nearly all gr, tov eKiropevoixivov ; [pr Mat']. 

X. 1. colum{p)na. So AF dd ; gr mss 38 (orSXos) : — CT, cl, with gg pr, column{a)e; gr MSS and 
nearly all mss, arvKoi. 

ib. 6. + et mare et {ea) quae in eo sunt. So A, and {om ea) FCTdd, &c., cl ; with gr J^'CPQ and 
most : — but gg pr om ; with KA and mss 30 31 32 38 40 49 98. 

xi. 1. datus est calamus mihi similis. So D (txt)' ; and so all vg write calamus (gr, /ca\a/x,os) : — but 
gg, data . . . harundo ; pr, dedit . . . harundinem. 

ib. g. — et corpora eoj-um^'''>. So T {om also per iii dies et dimid., by homoeot.): — AFCdd and all 
vg else, and cl, ins, also gg {pr diverges) ; and so all gi;, koI ra TrruifiaTa avTwv. 

xii. 2. clamabat. So {pref. et) F, cl : — A, et damans ; CTdd, et clamat ; gg, et clamauit ; h, et 
clama . . . \_hiat']; pr, et exclamabat. — Of gr, C, xai expa^Ei/; AP, Kpd^ti; Q, &c., l/cjoa^ev; S', koL Kpd^iu 

ib. ib. ut pariat. So FCTifif, cl (A, pareat): gg h pr, pareret. All gr, nKilv. 

ib. II. animas suas. So FCTdd, cl ; gr 35 87, ras i/^v^as : — A, gg h pr, animam suam; most gr, 
T. xf/vx^v. 

xiii. 2. hestia. So dd, cl : — AFCT, and gg pr, bestiam. 

ib. 3. + uidi {unum). So Ydd, &c., cl ; gr ms 95, €i8ov: — ACT om, and ggpr; with gr mss and 
nearly all mss. 

ib. ib. in morte. So F : — ACT, dd, cl, and gg, in mortem, pr, ad mortem. All gr, £ts Bdvairov. 

• Haussleiter prints (conj.) cadebuni{\). - D (corr) calamum . . . datum . . . simile. 


Apoc. xiii. 5. magna et blasfemias. So Tdd, &c., cl :— A, magna blasphemiae ; FCT, magna et 
blasphemiae; also gg, magna et blasphemare [pr htaf]. Of gr, ^^C, and 38 51 94 95, have iieydXa Kal 
l3\aa-<i>rifiCa^, A, &C., ju.. koX ^Xa<rc)b>//ia, PQ, fi. (cat ^kaar^-qiiMV. 

ih. 6. in blasfemias. So Y'Ydd, cl, with gr i^AC and many (cis /JXao-c^ry/it'as) :— AC, /r, w ito- 
phemia ; gg, in blasphemiam, (gr PQ and many, «is p\a<T<^rjfi(,av). 

ib. 12. inhabilantes in ea. So </</ (cl, habitantes in ed): — A, habifantes in earn; F, inhabitantes in 
mm ; gg, qui habitant in ilia ; pr, habitantes terram. All gr, tous ei/ airiJ KaroiKovvTa% (or t. /caToi/c. ei/ avrjj). 

z"*. 13. ?■» conspectu {hominum). So FCT</i^, cl :— A, z'« conspectum. All gr, evwirtov ; ^^, coram 
hominibus ; pr, sub oculis. 

ib. 14. habitantes in terra. So cl :— AFCT, habitantes terram ; dd, habit, a terra ; gg, habit, in 
terram ; pr, eos qui inhabitant terram. All gr, t. /caroiKovvTas ettI t. yijs. 

.?'i5. 17. ut ne quis. So C {uti)T, with gr ^^C and a few mss (tva /tj; rts) : — AF(/<^, cl, et ne quis 
(gr >^'APQ, and most, Kal tva /a^ rts) ; ^^g^, «/ «/ nemo ; /r, «« j«?> {om et and a/). 

xiv. s- {sine macula) + enim (sunt). So A'CTdd hrl, cl ; with gr HQ and most (yap): — AF and 
gg, om enim ; with gr ACP {pr diverges). 

ib. ib. — ante thronum dd. So AFCT, hrl, &c., and gg pr, om ; as all gr : — dd, cl. ins. 

ib. 8. potionauit. So D (txt) with AF ; gr (mss and nearly all mss), miroTiKev : — Cdd, cl, potauit, 
T, potabit ; D (mg) gg m, biberunt (gr (.?) irCT-uKov) ; /r, ceciderunt (gr J^', ms 1 2, iriirTWKav, or — k«i'). 

j'i. 9 and II. carecterem. — So {caract.) AF, dd and cl (c^ar.); CT, caracter: — gg, notam, pr, nomen 
(in 9), notam (in 11). All gr, xdpayfia. So too in xix. 20 (but pr, caragma) ; also in xx. 4 (but Aug. 
por pr"], inscriptionern). See also on xiii. 16 in Subsect. ill supr. 

ib. 10. («z«o irae dei) quod mixtum est. So T'dd, cl : — AFCT, qui mixtus est; gg pr, mixto ; all 
gr, rov KfKipa<Tfx.ivov. 

XV. 3. rex saeculorum. So YG^^dd, &c., cl ; with gr i^C, mss i8 95 {rS>v aXiyvunv) : — A (w/), caelorum ; 
^^, gentium {h pr, omnium gentium) ; with gr X'APQ, most, (t. iQvwv). 

ib. 4. timebit ■¥ te. So a few vg, and cl ; with gr K, 6 7 8 29 38 95 : — AFCT, &c., om te (also, 
with timeat, dd) ; with gr ACPQ and most. 

xvi. 2. et eos qui {adorant). So Ydd: — ACT, cl, et in eos qui: — gg pr, om \in'\ eos; {h, adorantibus). 

ib. 3. factum est sanguis tamquam morlui. So (Zdd, and {facius est) AFT, cl ; gr (nearly all), at/za 
*as viKpov, {gg, sicut for tamquam): — h, uelut mortui{s) sanguis {prom tanq. mortui); gr mss 7 12 39, 

«)S ot/no ViKpov. 

ib. 5. {iustus es) + dne. So a few vg, cl : — AFCT(/</, &c., and ^^ h pr, om ; with all (?) gr. 

ib. 7. audiui de altari dicentem. So CT; with gr Q, ms i, •^kouo-o «k t. dvcruiT-qpiov Xcyoi/rosf F, a«a?. 
altare dicens ; with g^ i^ACP, and many mss {om Ik) : — A, aud. allerum dicens ; dd, and. alterum angelum 
ab altari dicentem (also cl {om angelum)). Other gr vary (36, <l>tavrjv sk t. 6v<r. Xeyova-av), &c. 

ib. 8. — et (before igni). So F; with all gr {iv irvpi ; similarly gg, in igne): — hdd, cl, et igni; 
{pr deviates, ignem inicere). 

ib. 16. congregdbit. So dd, cl : but — uit, AF, &c. ; gg, pr ; as gr, a-uvjjyayei' (J^ — yov). 

xvii. 11. —et {ipsa). So dd; with gr J^ only : — AFCT, &c., cl; also ggpr, et ipsa; all gr else, 
Kal avTOi. 

ib. ib. uadet. So AFC : — Tdd, &c., cl, uadit, also gg ; with all gr (vrrayet) ; but pr, ibit. 

xviii. 2. — et odibilis. So AF; with gr J^PQ and most mss : — CTdd, and cl, also gg pr, ins ; with 
gr AP, ms 1 6, &c. (xat ix,eiJi.ia-rifj.fvov). 

ib. 3. de ira. So AFCT, &c., with gr A(C) :—dd, &c., cl, de uino irae ; with gr i^Q (ck t. otvou t. 
Bv/Mv ; but P, and most, e/c t. 9. t. ot.) ; ^^, de ira uini; pr, de uino. 

ib. 12. byssi. So AF<f(^ (cl) ; C, ^J'wo; gr (ms 1 and a few), fivara-ov : — T, byssinum; gg, byssini; 
pr om; gr ACPQ, and many, /Sva-a-ivov (X, —vtov). — But cp. ver. 16 m/r, where D writes bisso, with 
(iywo) dd, &c., cl (as gr Q and many others, ^va-a-ov) : — but AFCT, byssino, also pr; gg, byssinum (gr 
KACP, ^va-a-ivov). Cp. note in Subsect. iii supr, on xix. 14. 

ib. ib. cod. So {cocci) all vg : — ^^^f, coccini; pr, coccineae uestis. All gr, kokkivov. Also, ver. 16, 
D, coco, {cocco) all vg -.—gg, coccinum, pr, —ino ; all gr, kokkivov. 


Apoc. xviii, lb. {uasa) de lapide pretm{s)o. So all vg, with gr A (e/c \L6o\>) ; but gg, uas ligmum ; pr, 
uas . . . de pretioso ligno ; with gr i^CPQ and mss [Ik fuXou). 

ib. 14. et poma dis{s)idern animae tuae. So dd, &c., cl ; with gr Q and many (1? oirmpa t^s ein0vfxiai 
TJjs ij/vxrj's (Tov) :— AFCT, e/ poma tua (C, tu) desid. animae {om tuae) ; with gr J^ACP, ms 95 (17 ott. o-ov 
Tijs k-iTiQ. T. il/vxrj?,—mss 35 87 write aov in both places) -.—gg, et horn desid. animae tuae ; pr, pomorum 
quoque iuorum concupiscentia animae {gg placing pron. as Q, pr as J^ACP). 

ib. ib. praedara. So F, cl : — all vg, and /r, clara ; gg, splendida. All gr, X.a[/,Trpa. 

ib. 16. amida. So all vg ; — gg, uastata (corr. uestita) ; pr, uelata. All gr, [^J ■mpLJ^tpX-qixivr). 

ib. ib. deaurata. So all vg : — gg, inaurata ; pr, culta. All gr, Kexfiva-wfievrj. 

ib. 17. et qui mari operatur. So D (txt) sol: — D (corr. interl.), operantur; and so F; ACT, maria; 
dd and cl, in mari; gg, et quicumque in mari operantur; pr, et quicumque morantur in mare. All gr, ouai 
TTjV OaKau-trav ipyd^ovTai. 

xix. 3. ascendet. So CT (no gr) -.—KYdd (cl), also gg pr, ascendit; nearly all gr, avapaivei. (a few, 

ave^aivev, or dveySij). 

ib. 20. [seduxit eos . . . .) et qui adorauerunt. So CTdd, cl ; all gr, IvXav-qa-iv . . . Koi rows irpoa- 
KwovvToji : — AF, qui et adorant ; gg, hi qui adorant ; pr (diverging), seducti erant . . . adorare. 

XX. 5. -^ et [caeteri). So dd, &c. ; with gr Q and many {koX ol Xoittol) : — AFCT, &c., cl, om et; 
with gr A (P def., ^ om sentence) ; gg likewise, and Aug. {reliqui). 

ib. 7. et seducet. So AFdd, cl : — gg, ut seducat ; Aug., ad seducendas ; all gr, irXav^a-ai. 

ib. JO. — et {bestia). So CTdd (F, est bestia), with gr X, ms i, &c. : — A, &c., and cl, ins et ; also 
ggi Aug. ; with gr APQ and many. 

ib. ib. — et (before crudabuntur). So dd, cl : — AFCT ins et, also gg, Aug. ; with all gr. 

ib. 1 1, {inuentus) in eis. D (txt) sol : — D (mg), ab eis ; and so hSQdd; but T, cl, eis (gr, owtois) : — 
gg, in illis ; Aug., eorum. 

xxi. 4. ultra .... ultra. So AFCT, &c., cl {dd om ultra '■''■^) ; gr, ert . . . . Irt (but Ki ms i, 
om £Tt<*') : — gg, ultra .... amplius ; Aug., z'awz .... a/to. 

z'3. 8. execratis. F {exsecr — ) CTdd, cl, &c. : — A, excaecatis; gg, abkominabilibus ; pr, abominatis; 
gr, c/SSeXvy/ueVots. 

ib. ij. mensus est mures. So CTdd (cl, murum) : — AF, mensus est murus. Of gr, KAP and many 
write ip,iTpr}(rev to tcIxos, but Q and many om verb. Of vtt, gg has metitus est murum ; pr, muros 
dimensus est. 

ib. 23. ut luceant in ea. So YCTdd, &c., cl : — A, ut luceant ea ; g, ut luceant illi; pr, ut luceat ei. 
Of gr, J^' and a few write Iva. ifiatvwa-iv h airy ; i^APQ and most, om iv. 

ib. 27. coinquin{n)atum. So KFdd, &c., cl : — gg, commune; pr, inmundum; gr, kowov. 

xxii. 5. inluminabit {eos). So {illos) dd, &c., cl ; F, inluminauit illos; with gr AP, cfxoTio-ei (l;r') 
airous ; J^Q and many mss, ^mnd : — ACT, &c., inluminat illos ; with some gr mss {(fxnTL^ei) ; gg, 
inluminat supra illos ; pr, lucebit super eos. 

ib. 8. (before ego iohannis) — et. S